Message-ID:  <E0zdWdw-00062m-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 23:55:58 +0100." 
              <13896.50111.843267.752713@fell.open.ac.uk>
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:32:49 +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

chris rowley wrote:

> Robin Fairbairns wrote --
>
> > there were plans, once upon a time, remember.  that's why there's
> > `supported' and `other'.
>
> plans for what?
>
> As I recall, that division was made as it is one that the ctan
> maintainers could manage ... it was not much to do with what anyone
> thought was more (or less) useful.

i wasn't a ctan maintainer at the time, but as i interpreted it the
intention was that `supported' really meant some sort of guarantee of
quality -- hence the inordinate time it took for my footnote (now
footmisc) package to get on to the archive (i wrote the first version
over christmas 1993, thanks to your kind christmas present to us all
that year ;-)

> > 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.
>
> I had not realised that it was breaking down in such amazing ways!
> But I sympathise with Donald not wanting to claim any support for
> his stuff:-)!

but the ridiculous thing is, he's as conscientious about supporting
his packages (wherever they are in the tree) as anyone else.  (if not
more...)

r