[tex-live] amsfonts again

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Tue Feb 15 10:12:01 CET 2005

Staszek Wawrykiewicz wrote:

>1. amsfonts package doesn't contain fonts, which could be missleading
>2. amsfonts belongs to collection-latex and also scheme-context, but
>   without fonts is hardly usable
>3. amssymbols package belongs to collection-fontsrecommended
>4. euler package belongs to collection-latexrecommended
>5. cmextra package belongs to collection-fontsextra
>6. symbol package is messed with some stuff which belongs to amssymbols.
I am not at all surprised. I'd strongly welcome sorting out
messes like this, which arise because (to be honest) I have
little idea of what most of these packages do, haven't ever
used them, and probably never will :-}

>I'd tend to merge all amsfonts stuff into one, consistent package
don't they have different ownership? thats an important criteria
for keeping them apart

>What can we do? I still think that "classical" amsfonts stuff (still not 
>only used by amslatex!, please consider also ConTeXt and I have many
>examples of topology articles using still old amstex) should be merged 
>into *one* package
if you do this (and I welcome it), you also need to get CTAN
looking the same

>Perhaps we can merge all files in just ams/ in 
>fonts/[afm|source|tfm|type1]. P
as I say, so long as the licensing etc allows it, fine


More information about the tex-live mailing list