Re: Future versions of teTeX, and TeXlive as a replacement

[Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@physik.uni-erlangen.de>]

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 15:46 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote:
> 
> I think all but the last two packages are in tl-latex-base or
> tl-latex-recommended, which is good, because all these packages are
> important and often used. I think the seletion in these two packages is
> allready quite good and based on popularity.

I think I have changed my mind slightly on this one. There are a few
oddities in the current splitting in TL that go beyond the problems with
PSNFSS fonts. Here is what I came across without looking systematically:

old vs new issues:
- old (HA-)prosper in tl-latex-recommended
  new beamer and powerdot in tl-latex-extra

- old pdfcprod in tl-pdfetex 
  new microtype in tl-latex-extra


strange things:
- jurabib in tl-lang-de (tl-bibtex-extra would better)
  juramisc etc in tl-latex-extra (tl-lang-de would be better)

- 'publisher' (classes for journals) stuff in tl-latex-extra instead of
  tl-publishers 


tl-chemistry:
  - only LaTeX packages, but does not depend on tl-latex-base
  - small 
  => merge with other scientific packages like units, scipaper or
     textopo into tl-latex-science?


- What is the point of the tl-pdfetex package? Mostly LaTeX packages!


Guess this should be done more systematically and presented to upstream.

cheerio
ralf