Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!jarthur!hmcvax.claremont.edu From: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) Newsgroups: comp.text.tex Subject: Re: LaTeX 2.10/3.0 Keywords: LaTeX, Mittlebach, Schoepf Message-ID: <8256@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Date: 3 Sep 90 04:55:31 GMT Sender: news@jarthur.Claremont.EDU Reply-To: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu Organization: Quixote Lines: 94 In article <1990Sep3.010417.21701@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones) writes... >Greetings. We're in the process of installing TeX 3.0, and in the >process I thought I'd update our version of LaTeX and also actually >produce a Local Guide to LaTeX for our system. (You remember the >Local Guide -- it's that usually mythical document referred to in the >LaTeX manual.) Good man. If only every site had someone doing that rather necessary piece of work... >By updating our version of LaTeX, I mostly mean grabbing Mittlebach >and Schopf's code from ymir.claremont.edu and making it available on >our system. Be sure that you get the updated lplain.tex and splain.tex that have been modified for TeX 3.0--otherwise, you'll have users pounding on your door asking why LaTeX just hyphenated "all" (although it doesn't appear to be willing to hyphenate "God", at least). >This also means replacing LaTeX's font selection >mechanism by the M&S scheme. However, before I actually turn this >whole system loose on the local users, I have a few questions. >1. I have before me an article entitled "Towards LaTeX 2.10," by M&S, >that appeared in in the November 1989 issue of TUGboat, in which they >talk about a few of the changes they are making. First of all, has >LaTeX 2.10 been dumped in favor of LaTeX 3.0? (I suspect so, since it >seems from other articles I've seen on the net, and from some of the >code I've seen, that the revision of LaTeX has turned into a major >re-implementation of LaTeX.) Second, have Mittlebach and Schoepf >released any more details of how extensive their revision will be? >I've seen nothing since an article Dan Hosek posted to this group on >July 6, 1990, which didn't have much information except that there >would be major changes in the output routine and unspecified changes >in the List environment, front matter and section heading mechanisms. >Finally, does anyone have any idea when the new LaTeX will be out? That's Don. As in "Duck". There is not much news on the new LaTeX front since July 6. My suggestion is that you document your LaTeX code as thoroughly as possible and hope for the best. Oh, and don't hold your breath. >2. What problems can I expect with the version of LaTeX I've described >above? I.e., LaTeX 2.09 (version of 7 Dec 1989), running under TeX >3.0 (with Mittelbach's modified lplain.tex from ymir), and with >Mittlebach's font selection code installed? What is likely to change >enough that the users will notice and come after me with sharp >implements? Well, for safety's sake, I would recommend that you configure your system with oldlfont.sty rather than newlfont.sty; this configuration seems to give a decent enough golden mean between the old way of doing things and the new. The two biggest gotchas are [1] letter.sty won't work. The local solution here, since our TeX tree is also a distribution point was to configure paths so that a file letter.sty which inputs the original letter.sty and then makes the necessary changes is found before the original, non-functioning letter.sty. By renaming the old letter.sty to, say, oldletter.sty, the path trickery is not necessary. The changes I made are in the file [anonymous.tex.inputs.local]letter.sty on ymir.claremont.edu. [2] The common doublespace.sty doesn't work. I have a version on ymir.claremont.edu in [anonymous.tex.inputs.latex-contrib]doublespace.sty which works for both font selection schemes (the original is in [anonymous.tex.inputs.latex-contrib.obsolete]doublespace.sty). I'm currently experimenting with better ways of double spacing for my generic thesis macro, but that approach will require the changes being applied in the style file itself, which is OK, since that's exactly the way it should be. >3. The local guide includes the file addendum.tex, which contains a >list of errata and additions to the LaTeX manual. The addendum.tex I >have is dated 31 October 1989. Is there a more recent errata list >available anywhere? Nope. That's the most recent version. Remember, that's only changes to the manual, so the date on it won't necessarily correspond to the changes to latex.tex. -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info