[tex-live] Directory structure

[Staszek Wawrykiewicz]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:

>   >> doc/generic/devanagr sounds best to me.
> 
> I agree (sorry, Staszek).

Do not worry. I've just investigated :-)
> 
>   > 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.

Well, here is a problem, but "generic" is OK for all formats.
 
>   > tex/generic/devanagr/ I completelly agree with Karl's good
>   > suggestions. 
> 
> On the other hand it is "language support".

OK. So fonts+macros are well deposed in generic/devnag . I can only add:
do not put .fd and .sty files into tex/latex/devnag. That's the point.
 
>   > 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.

Hmm, why not, if we have so many _font packages_ not related only
to LaTeX? For years I've corrected so many packages for TL, which was 
first declared as _latex_ packages (completelly wrong, as Hans can use them
in ConTeXt, and Jacko and me in Plain :-)
 
> 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
> packages.

No. Language specific macros should go into latex/foo or plain/foo
It is not a case of devnag, as it contains support for several language
scripts.

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

If I want to insert some words in Tibethan in the Polish text? Sorry,
but devnag seems to me european (sorry, latin) oriented.
 
> 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?

Well, I can use (hapilly) so many fonts without worrying about
any .sty or .fd files :-)

All the best,

-- 
Staszek Wawrykiewicz
StaW at gust.org.pl