References: <1b15b290-d536-a8b2-89a4-a946f51a931e@latex-project.org>
            <20170801.155234.1892312147485020492.wl@gnu.org>
            <20170801144152.GB2463536@phare.normalesup.org>
            <20170801.170952.1802060190080991436.wl@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Message-ID:  <20170801171138.GA2526095@phare.normalesup.org>
Date:         Tue, 1 Aug 2017 19:11:38 +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:         Arthur Reutenauer <arthur.reutenauer@NORMALESUP.ORG>
Subject: Re: \usepackage problem with LaTeX 3
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <20170801.170952.1802060190080991436.wl@gnu.org>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: R

> I think so, yes.

  I’m glad :-)

> 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'.

  There’s no contradiction if you do it like that, but your message
could just as easily be read as meaning that you were not going to
change the name of the patched file, since you didn’t plan to distribute
it.

	Best,

		Arthur