Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:17:30 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.2) with ESMTP id k57LHJXD020634 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:17:24 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k57LE6hc003240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:14:06 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k57GA8Is020446; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:14:04 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.3) with spool id 1297139 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:14:03 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k57LE37V027061 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:14:03 +0200 Received: from f7.net (server1.f7.net [64.34.169.74]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k57LDx0m003229 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:14:02 +0200 X-Envelope-From: karl@freefriends.org X-Envelope-To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE Received: (from karl@localhost) by f7.net (8.11.7-20030920/8.11.7) id k57LDuw23162; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:13:56 -0500 Message-ID: <200606072113.k57LDuw23162@f7.net> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:13:56 -0500 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Karl Berry Subject: Re: AW: LaTeX Release 2005/12/01 To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: Precedence: list X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at proteosys.com Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2006 21:17:30.0114 (UTC) FILETIME=[C8CB3620:01C68A77] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4969 from a practical point of view I personally prefer to have all production files for one type of task in one directory rather than in 2 Indeed, I actually think it would be a great step if we could abandon TDS with its harebrained(*) splitting by file format, and every package simply be installed in /some/texmf/packagename-vvvv, as the author creates it. Then the whole ctan->tds conversion problem goes away, updates become relatively simple, authors can do whatever crazy subdir structure they want, etc. (No, I'm not planning to change TL or anything else in this way. :) karl (*) it was necessary back then, but I see no deep reason for it now.