MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACKZBPXyV+Sv6ttKCKQcdccNcq330BD7XtJWGtuXHTtX00TsnA@mail.gmail.com> <54033B96.8070007@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <CACKZBPXf+mOtgboYZm9oOaqKoZA584z22WTexAaoAUdPiR627g@mail.gmail.com>
            <54037E00.9050005@latex-project.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-ID:  <CACKZBPUFSZE2Ux=pEeLHQdkEQZqMYPv_OTOHhDnpwFFDt=5j3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:09:52 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Michiel Helvensteijn <mhelvens@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: How to get l3str.sty, l3seq.sty, etc. these days?
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <54037E00.9050005@latex-project.org>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Frank Mittelbach
<frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> wrote:

>> Let me put it like this. Until now, I've always been able to do this:
>>
>> \RequirePackage{expl3}
>> \RequirePackage{l3prop}
>>
>> But now, this gives me the error message:
>>
>> ! LaTeX Error: File `l3prop.sty' not found.
>
> correct. This is because we finally removed the individual .sty files.
>
> ...
>
> Therefore we announced way back that one should always load expl3 and not
> any individual files.

I see. Thanks, this explains a lot. That must have been before I ever
started playing with expl3. I've always assumed the individual
packages were required. Moreover, I'm pretty sure I got that from an
official example at the time.

> and now we finally extract everything into a single file and the individual
> files only exist on the source level (just like LaTeX2e where you have many
> source files (.dtx) but only a single latex.ltx

(Actually, I can't find any announcement of this.)

> So I guess you have to bite the bullet and remove the calls to individual
> files as it really don't make any sense to provide empty .sty files just to
> support the above scenario

Hm.. I didn't even think of that. But actually, it makes perfect
sense. Have those files do nothing but print a deprecation warning.
Keep them around for a year, and maybe then remove them.

I will fix my own packages now, of course. But can you be sure I am
the only one to have made this mistake?

-- 
www.mhelvens.net