[tex-live] Directory structure

Reinhard Kotucha reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Thu Jan 19 23:59:23 CET 2006

>>>>> "Staszek" == Staszek Wawrykiewicz <staw at gust.org.pl> writes:

  > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
  >> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Karl Berry wrote:
  >> >
  >> > My impression is that it is better for users if documentation
  >> for a > package is in one place, where feasible.  Whether it is >
  >> doc/fonts/devanagr or doc/generic/devanagr or whatever does not
  >> matter > as much as the doc for the package being together.
  >> Including samples > and README's.  Feel free to make a subdir for
  >> samples, e.g., > doc/fonts/devanagr/demos.
  >> >
  >> doc/generic/devanagr sounds best to me.

I agree (sorry, Staszek).

  > If so, please follow that also for *all* macros, e.g.,

As far as TeX macros are concerned I think that it's not possible to
disregard TDS because kpathsea depends on it.

  > tex/generic/devanagr/ I completelly agree with Karl's good
  > suggestions. 

On the other hand it is "language support".

  > As for my taste, the main contents of devnag package are fonts,
  > other files (macros) serve mainly as support for using *fonts*. So
  > (perhaps) it would be better something like: doc/fonts/devnag
  > (with a subdirectory for samples) tex/latex/ tex/plain/ fonts/
  > (all the font stuff)

Is it a matter of taste?  If it is, something is wrong.  In the main
texmf trees we have tex/{generic,plain,latex,context,...} and I think
that if a package provides TeX macros and fonts, people search for
documentation about TeX macros, not for documentation about fonts.

A LaTeX user expects documentation for Polish in doc/latex and not in
doc/fonts though the fonts consume more disk space than the macro

I think that people want support for a particular language and expect
that the system provides the needed fonts.

The only reason to have doc/fonts is that there are so many *latin*
fonts.  That's a problem indeed.  But the existence of this directory
is quite illogical.  Is there any file at all which describes a font
itself rather than a macro package?

Zdenek, I'm aware that changing anything can cause trouble.  But I
don't see any good reason any more to stick with the 8.3 naming scheme
for filenames.  There is no maintained TeX distribution supporting a
system which has such a restriction.  So why not change the directory
names from "devanagr" to  "devanagari"?  And why not provide a file


for a while.

Compatibility is a good thing.  But do we want to have the crappy 8.3
names in 100 years?   If not, what is the difference between changing
it now or changing it in 100 years?

The name "devanagr" is quite ugly and hard to remember.  "dev.sty" is
quite convenient for lazy people like me, but...


Reinhard Kotucha			              Phone: +49-511-4592165
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover	                      mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.

More information about the tex-live mailing list