References: <941aad2c-bc3d-ca7a-1757-470e7ed1d5b9@free.fr>
            <87bmc3ripu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
            <FAFAAEF8-5739-4255-8DB3-EFE2418830E4@wspr.io>
            <6f6508f9-18da-5f27-6cc7-49852890928f@latex-project.org>
            <3c82de22-41d6-e8cd-8a51-3d210154d0e5@morningstar2.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
            Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <dcdc7845-1a19-1634-0286-d43e76b3a084@latex-project.org>
Date:         Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:29:22 +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:         Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: Package registration
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <3c82de22-41d6-e8cd-8a51-3d210154d0e5@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

Am 22.06.18 um 10:59 schrieb Joseph Wright:
> 
> We discussed this when I first raised the idea of a list. Unlike some 
> other areas (e.g. Python code and CPAN), there are no formal 
> requirements for distributing (La)TeX packages. More importantly, CTAN 
> set their own approach independent of the LaTeX team.
> 
> Thus the aim of a prefix database is necessarily more 'for information' 
> than anything 'stronger'. I think if something was requested which 
> looked extremely problematic, a registration request would be a good 
> opportunity for discussion. Ultimately, however, the prefix is down to 
> the package author: it's no good saying 'no we won't log it', only for 
> the package to go to CTAN anyway but ending up that bit harder for other 
> developers to see.

I haven't said that we should say "we don't log it" not normally anyway, 
though, for something like "stats", I would think we should add that to 
the list of reserved ones.

My point was more that guidance helps, and of course, in case of 
problematical requests (in our opinion) a discussion with the author at 
that point.

At least at the time of initial development it is fairly easy to change 
a prefix (if you are lucky than basically by <@@=prefix> + 2-3 interface 
commands)

> In the case in hand, whilst 'statistics' is quite general, it's also 
> pretty long and there are a number of alternatives ('stats' or 'stat' 
> the two most obvious).

As I said I would veto something like "stats", as for "statistics" it is 
long and it might be the package name so it is probably ok.

frank