X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1886" "Fri" "4" "July" "1997" "11:15:53" "+0100" "Robin Fairbairns" "Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK" nil "48" "Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals)" "^Date:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA18165; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:16:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <7.840B7278@listserv.gmd.de>; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:16:08 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 163264 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:16:02 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.7.6/8.7.4) with SMTP id MAA27223 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:15:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.62 #6) id 0wk5P9-0007bo-00; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:15:55 +0100 Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jul 1997 10:59:41 +0200." <199707040859.KAA27034@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:15:53 +0100 From: Robin Fairbairns Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals) Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2254 Frank wrote: > > > * 5 does definitely not work with current LaTeX (after checking) > > > > in that case it would not be kept on CTAN! i dont see the point > > well, what a good point. only problem is that many such things > are. when i started my private survey i even found document styles for > version 2.08 on CTAN and i bet they are still there. It's a great pity that you didn't tell us about this stuff! We do have an area for "this is totally unusable in present circumstances", even if it wasn't felt reasonable to delete the thing. > there are reasons for keeping at least some of those in 5 nevertheless > > a) might be 2.09 > b) we might keep the work as eventually somebody might upgrade them > c) historians might welcome it :-) I can (just about) understand the reasoning that says we keep 2.09- only stuff. Personally, I would move it all to the obsolete tree -- (b) is justification for keeping it, I suppose. My take is that CTAN is _not_ an historical archive, and that (c) is an irrelevance. > what i wanted 5 for is stuff that fails with 2e --- no further check What _we_ (CTAN) want is to prune out useless stuff. It would be _really_ nice to reverse the present monotonic increase in CTAN's size ;-) > once all the available material is classified in that way the CTAN > people could still decide to throw those out on into a > veryobsoletestuff directory or whatever. point is unless somebody goes > through all the stuff that is out there on CTAN we will never catch > that stuff It happens, from time to time. We got some `proper' fonts the other day and realised the previous versions were (effectively) useless, so we obsoleted them. Therefore, input from those who know (that archived stuff is effectively useless) is always very welcome. I would encourage people to mail ctan@urz.uni-heidelberg.de about these things... Robin