[texhax] Collection for social sciences and the humanities for TeXLive 2006

[Juergen Fenn]

karl at freefriends.org (Karl Berry) writes:

>     jura                       collection-langgerman (really?)
>
> It's not really worth a long debate IMHO, but given that the package is
> only useful for people who speak German, I think it's better (ie, less
> likely to be missed) in langgerman than anywhere else.
>
> In the alternative, there's an argument that it could go in
> collection-publishers, where other thesis-type packages are included.

No, not "publishers", because the different jura* packages are not
meant for publishing. They are only for writing term papers and theses
at university, these are usually not published.

It seems most important to me to keep the jura* packages together.
Now, jura itself is in langgerman, whereas the other jura* packages
are in latexextra. All jura* packages are supposed to be of interest
to German-language jurisprudence. But that alone is no reason to put
them in langgerman because, e.g., the camel package is of use only to
North American lawyers, and you have put it in latexextra, not in some
package like lang-us-english etc.

So my suggestion is, let's put jura* as well as camel into
humanities. That's where a German/ Austrian lawyer would probably look
for it. Agreed? ;-)

>     gb4e		- not in tpms?, but available on CTAN
>
> It dates from 1995.  Looking at the files, the authorship/legal
> situation seems rather confused (not surprisingly), so I'm a bit
> reluctant to add it.

If you feel the package is obsolete or the license is a hindrance to
including it in TL, I could pass this along to the Ling-TeX
list. There was a discussion to gather together these old packages
still in use by linguists down to the present day. Some of the
packages they mentioned were not even on CTAN. 

>     pst-jftree	- in collection-pstricks
>
> I don't think there's any point in moving any pstricks (sub)packages out
> of collection-pstricks.  

I think so, too. I listed it because it was mentioned on Ling-TeX. I
asked Herbert Voß and he also was against removing any package from
the pstricks collection.

>     fwlw            - not in TL
>
> fwlw.sty is apparently one file, and it's in
> texmf-dist/tex/latex/ltxmisc in TL.  ltxmisc is a confusing area, not
> worth the time to deal with now.

So, we won't this one file and leave it there.

>     dialogue        - not in TL 
>
> dialogue is part of the frankenstein package, which has never been
> included in TL for various reasons.

Okay.

>     plari           - not in TL  
>
> Added now.

Thanks.

>     pst-node	- not in TL?, but in the TeX Catalogue
>     pstcol		- not in TL, not in the TeX Catalogue
>     psfrag		- not in TL?, but in the TeX Catalogue
>
> All of these are in TL.  And psfrag has nothing to do with the
> humanities in particular, as far as I know.

Herbert Voß wrote to me pstcol was obsolete. He added 

pst-autoseg  	- Linguistics: autosegmental representations

to my list. Is this in TL?

>     cm-lingmacros   - not in TL, not in the TeX Catalogue
>
> For the packages not on CTAN, the first step is to get them uploaded
> there, which means trying to contact the author.  Feel free ... :).

8-) I'll pass this, too, to the Ling-TeX list...

What about the fonts? Leave tipa and dictsym in the fonts collections,
or move them to humanities? I'm in favour of the former.

Thanks,
Jürgen.