User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
            Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <201503252123.t2PLN4Z2031134@freefriends.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: nag.co.uk does not designate
              permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2015 21:45:34.2869 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM2PR05MB1236
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
                      listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id t2PLjeaN011017
Message-ID:  <55132C7B.3060809@nag.co.uk>
Date:         Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:45:31 +0000
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: David Carlisle <davidc@NAG.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: latex and unicode-letters
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <201503252123.t2PLN4Z2031134@freefriends.org>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>,
           <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE?body=INFO%20LATEX-L>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Owner: <mailto:LATEX-L-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Archive: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam); Detail=V3;
X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found)
X-UI-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:WCrBq4USCts=:V8bLDF2b2liqb+gYjUo37nAZdQ
 nvOYlU5NrwBGOwNHECqi/UyoCQzGNgJAZchSK9/jk4k9iYxPaH2uuJF2p9zlo8iXMzpGu6GhM
 Vw86csa0ibyOCgdmmdIkLewbT0P5X9tliJLzzDaQLxrdEuADzCar3VP8A9xPjb6+HEgQpbTmC
 UGVmAjyn/AJGEIBq7yZ9j738v9uKljnzrmO5eixwvGDPikJNzpdc0Pkwph08GSI7XNkRIvm7H
 QViBnQ+xVq2UGHzswnnuWbBqkg3cBhqvBQkIrbshR6T9UsR3u0MP8yz/+AwhhArCB1/BweOeD
 HeJps/WZ0uUY5sRv8l0X2AmUQewLrc+0w7uK3vXXiVvrymLNlqDpX7mSJfojC5TxUIRoDpxGi
 ZICVZJmCJMTROM+Tp7YJLM7BKkguyZKI0z1wW5F8AN0NOFVl1dCGaheCY+cEm/lRRr2sIN7SR
 UyYTysgKlpMPaV6P+j9zCLuRSVFjS10ZI6awd7mxW0I0Vs3NYXiXobCN08ApuwmDzaAt/6NfF
 Y19rHsYLe0HEP0YAuOdIF6cKZV+Y/OY67AUu9WDNxijxH6CcAR8tvXipa2yXMamXKqBKSe22F
 nEQg1x+pjWgxV5Tta1z71slo4jdQeIoSjEzSJQAkJrA12Oh/Xz8x4gtosFBVxJB+oYAAI2hHK
 qnz8Q6cPiV+oLPG3pFbxZZjG5Broy+ijAHj+QccpdF1SgdRpEncopP0V3lmO6bkYY80c00NOr
 r/BJUs0t+cJycYQ/uLC698905pQqQnlIPypx4/OMOLSbdzj3hU0hpk61jyFMBhGz4pbNS+oTx
 jCMQm0NUICACNsy+nMsT2HK9e+P9U4mY7HcFfsXYmnZezgW8+8d5S26Lk73gzEVksAUvgKY4g
 hawN+WXn5KAGARXxkKU/6592hCZuczEbe4cUdBdmMj48zIPrRGI21lR6lC7XNyBTsXW8RIKkv
 qCf6D2aeQLoY4zvmJmrwXPeihRs2RFsXmEfssRlYqbw+wpTbhw6iSpODdV3W7RMbELrHpROx+
 6u/x/ZqoaQkAD3XjeSXbF4IKIRLG6a91UH9yDheHetjVe+OwysHs5K7Yu3mFeL8OLiIczrvx6
 wlJvaDudMA5UuPdQtKwR32fK2/B1Kc2/pFNHgg/+ZRjBRgwDWaRmc18pE4Rp1qj74SLIduQXw
 Rl/bBxU4AhcJx9/e+7/F7iyeRhK8JQSMIbDlpjwMPzxGtlzG9ot5wVmOTRwEtdL3s64ASv9IV
 jDHptVr6H0DydrhWbE87LXCf6VkP3W1IdfKlVgxi+EauOxWAJCyjRxIV89/ttmfbaz3sbhOUh
 nFnBA7149rqR8pUMJnr9JyTiQIfkdTOz5aENuBzwI+iswmkYBQ75/mKlwrOYnfyBJaKPh9zdO
 TsCt9iQT/ckE6yR5aCYEWYeBGK38PnzBgO9dcGU91ITv2g8IlSaMFgM1Ua1j5w7KW33ktMrO1
 4bz2XZD9c/zGRj65TD8/NnH8yF3jR1FkT48Nxr5cbNuuPMJrbp
X-UI-Loop:V01:y08aHA7JTbw=:jRo8MC2wbTNXvjuBLn1WvEF4SnR+9I+BbBm3BoMZkoU=
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 85.214.41.38
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 7683

On 25/03/2015 21:23, Karl Berry wrote:
> saying words to the effect 'You better have a matching set of
> files'.
>
> I agree.  And my point is that a user cannot know if the files are
> in fact "matching" unless you specify actual information about the
> files used to build.  A random version string like "7.0.0" is not
> enough to technically verify.  A checksum (ideal), a file size (good
> enough in practice), something that is specific to the actual content
> is needed. Otherwise it's just a guess.
>
> Regarding the name: I like unicode-letters.def.
>
> thanks, karl
>

I don't object to adding a checksum (especially as Joseph's doing the
work;-) but I expect for most people it's just as easy to check that
from the version number. If whatever-its-called.def says it is generated
from version 7.0.0 people can just do as you said you did in your
original message, go to version 7.0.0 of the UCD, get the files and
generate it themselves. If they get a different answer, something is wrong.

If there is a checksum in the file the procedure is more or less the
same, get the right version of the UCD data files (for which the version
number is needed anyway) generate a new version of the .def
file, the only difference is that then you can compare the generated
checksum comments rather than use diff or fc etc to compare the files.


David


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:

Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.


This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Microsoft Office 365.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________