[tex-live] Antomega format and directory structure again...

[Alexej Kryukov]

Hi,

I am starting a new thread to discuss possible directory
structure for antomega format-specific directory. Let's assume we 
have agreed that antomega should be separated from omega and
lambda. However, still there are lots of things that need to be
clarified.

1. Antomega was born as a multilingual package for lambda, and only
later I had to include some stuff intended for loading into lambda
format (this was needed just to workaround various flaws of omega's
texmf part). That's why the current package structure includes
the antomega/ directory under omega/lambda/ and several directories
outside of this location.

Now, if antomega is considered a format by itself, it is especially
necessary to make a clear distinction between antomega format and
antomega as a multilingual package. So, should I keep the `antomega'
name for the format and rename the related package to something else
(say, `antibabel')? Of course I would prefer not to do so, because this
may cause various compatibility issues. Anyway, it is necessary to
have separate subdirectories in tex/antomega for the generic part and
for the package itself. I can't acccept the directory structure for
tex/antomega/ proposed by Thomas mainly because it messes 2 sorts of
files together. 

Note that this probably again returns us to the question about
compiler-specific directories in the TDS tree.

2. Currently TL and teTeX have 2 16-bit compilers, and both of them
theoretically can be used with antomega despite of several compatibility
problems. Both compilers are imperfect, so that user should have
a choice which compiler to use. This means we need at least 2
antomega-based formats. For example, the following lines in texmf.cnf
may be created instead of one proposed by Thomas:

TEXINPUTS.antilambda = .;$TEXMF/{tex/{antomega,latex,generic,},omega}//
TEXINPUTS.antilamed = .;$TEXMF/{tex/{antomega,latex,generic,},omega}//

Note that I have excluded the lambda directory which is pretty useless
in its current state, so that there is no reason to give it any
priority.

3. Should I duplicate the ut1omlgc.fd file in tex/antomega/?

4. Is it OK to select for my hyphenation files (not for patterns itself,
but for driver files used to load them) some names conflicting with
those used by Babel (i. e. grhyph.tex for Greek)? By this way I would be
able to eliminate the need of own languages.dat for antomega, and so
greatly simplify package installation for average users (because only
`generic' languages.dat can be edited using most configuration tools,
like texconfig.

5. I still insist that OCP and OTP files should be separated between 3
directories, as they are for now. This is principial.

6. Disregarding the question of what we should do with antomega, I
have to stress the fact that the current placement of omega-specific
files is illogical and event doesn't allow to figure out which files
in the texmf tree are used (or at least supposed to be used) by
omega/aleph. If necessary, I am ready to continue this discussion
in the TDS mailing list (but I think that the most issues is just
a natter of packaging).

-- 
Regards,
Alexej Kryukov <akrioukov at newmail dot ru>

Moscow State University
Historical Faculty