References: <1b15b290-d536-a8b2-89a4-a946f51a931e@latex-project.org>
            <20170801.155234.1892312147485020492.wl@gnu.org>
            <20170801144152.GB2463536@phare.normalesup.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Message-ID:  <20170801.170952.1802060190080991436.wl@gnu.org>
Date:         Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:09:52 +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:         Werner LEMBERG <wl@GNU.ORG>
Subject: Re: \usepackage problem with LaTeX 3
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <20170801144152.GB2463536@phare.normalesup.org>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: R


>> The changed files are used only to generate PDF documentation for
>> one of my packages (ttfautohint), which heavily uses the most
>> recent script additions to Unicode; they are not intended for
>> distribution in a generic way.  As soon as the corresponding
>> changes are applied upstream, I will use the upstream packages.
>> However, I can't estimate in advance when updated packages
>> appear...
> 
> Er... are you sure that you understand each other?

I think so, yes.

> It seems to me that you, Werner, are saying that you’re not going to
> distribute the files under their original names, and will just use a
> temporary solution until the changes are propagated to the
> distributions;

Yes, for example in my package's version 1.7 I plan to use
`fontspec-patched.sty'.

> while Frank is saying that since you plan to distribute the files
> you should stick to the policy of changing their names.

Yes.  Where is the contradiction?  Assuming that at the time of my
package's version 1.8 the upstream version of `fontspec.sty' contains
the patches I need, I no longer use `fontspec-patched.sty'.


   Werner