Re: tlc3 scheme -> scheme-small?

Dick, Karl et al

> 
> My agreement to adding tlc3 and making s-small somewhat larger is
> based on the assumption that no files are removed from the old
> basictex material. As your message says, "instead of making users
> pick between two similar sets of packages, we could add the tlc3 packages
> to s-small."
> 
> Removing the amstex fonts currently in basictex from the package
> would completely change the story, and I'm assuming that is not
> intended.
> 
> Dick Koch
> 

the list of files produced by Karl has been an automatic scripted 
attempt and that goes only that far -- for example it includes several 
packages that are mentioned in TLC as *don't use*  (but they are 
mentioned so in the book index so show up in the current list) ... thus 
if that scheme is supposed to be a curated list of of what we (TLC 
authors, LaTeX Team) consider a good set then it needs hand tailoring 
and cleanup first.

For the same reason, we can't throw out the basic fonts needed if you 
want to run LaTeX which is CM LM (for luaTeX) the amsfonts and a few more.

The rest can and should go separate, but probably also in a font-scheme.

In the opposite direction: what is currently in the basic set contains a 
good number of packages that I would never put in a curated list that I 
could endorse because they aren't any longer maintained and have 
accumulated bugs or for some other reasons.

but right and during the next weeks I will have no time to look at this 
in more detail and make a proposal for a complete list

frank