Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:39:41 +0100 (MET)
>What I propose is for me (myself) to take the current fontinst,
>add new copyright information, and make a new release on CTAN. At the
>same time I will make a `beta' subdirectory with a README, and we
>(CTAN) will put in there whatever Lars et al contribute. This list can
>decide when to move that material back to the main release.
Seems fine by me.
>I dont mind being `editor' on this, if Lars drives the details of the
Eh? Is this a typo or is there some meaning of this word that my dictionary
doesn't list. I can't make sense of it.
>OK, I'm fine with the idea of a shared maintenance, as long as this
>doesn't interfere with Alan's ideas about putting fontinst under a
>licence which doesn't allow anybody else but him to put out the next
>"official" version under the original name.
I didn't interpret Alan as putting out another fontinst (under that name)
was to be his personal privilige, I rather read him as there was to be some
group that has the privilige to put out fontinst.
It seems he needs to clarify how he meant it.
>Is it feasible to break fontinst.dtx into several modules that could
>maintained more easily by different maintainers?
I see no problem with this, and it would probably have organisatorial
advantages. Apart from the obvious changes, one only has to set
fontinst.ins up so that at least one of the files is read twice (so that
there is code for changing catcodes both the beginning and the end of
fontinst.sty). What could be worth some thought here though is what should
happen with the fontdoc package. Should its commands be distributed around
the current code for fontinst.sty, or should it continue to reside
This reminds me, BTW, of another thing I've meant to ask: Is the fontdoc
package supposed to work under Plain as well as LaTeX? I cannot recall any
examples of how to use it under Plain, and all the files fontinst generates
gets code for being typeset under LaTeX, but there is also some pieces of
code which seem to be all about making it work under both.