Message-ID:  <E0zdGwo-00031G-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:33:35 GMT." 
              <199811101633.QAA07366@lurgmhor.elsevier.co.uk>
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:47:17 +0000
From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: What is "base" LaTeX
Status: R

sebastian quoting philip helbig:

>  > I think a bazaar approach to LaTeX would make updating even more
>  > difficult than it is now.  (Standard LaTeX is OK, but stuff in contrib
>  > has to be done pretty much by hand.)  And I think the documentation and
>  > user-level syntax could be more uniform than it is now.
>
> sorry, but i think thats an argument for Bazaar. as it stands now, "contrib"
> is beyond the pale, roll your own, unknown, orphan. it needs bringing
> into the fold.

there were plans, once upon a time, remember.  that's why there's
`supported' and `other'.

but what with writers of high-quality stuff (such as donald arseneau)
going for other/misc for most submissions, and the fact that pretty
much anything goes to supported unless the author claims he really
doesn't want it, the distinction has rather faded.

r