This is one of the questions I get on and off, so I thought I'd post about it.
A couple of times, I've ended up with a situation where I need to modify code in a CTAN package proper - that is, I cannot just manage with a redefinition pattern like:
\let\old@COMMAND\current@COMMAND
\def\current@COMMAND{%
% pre-hook commands ...
\old@COMMAND
% ... post-hook commands ...
}
... in my main code. The changes may be just a couple of lines in a, say, 100's of lines of .sty
code, adding a new command - so it is in the "feature request" category, rather than "bugfix"; and as such, calling that with a "new" package name, and publishing it as such, would not be justified, in my opinion.
Of course, I could always "publish" such an "update" to a package by posting it anywhere on the 'Net (from pastebin to here); but I was interested - what is the correct procedure if I'd want this update published on the CTAN package proper, and the author/current maintainer are not accessible at the moment (say, up to a month from initial query) to approve/disapprove of the update?
Some related info:
-
Having done that, take your files and bundle them up in a ZIP or TAR.BZ (or etc.) archive and upload it. There are two CTAN ‘mirrors’ to which you can upload your work: ...
The only difference between the two is that a different person (in a different timezone) will process the upload. Historical, stable version archive of packages
CTAN holds the current release of each package: the 'archive' in the name is more because it's a single source for 'everything' than meant to imply a record. (Remember that before CTAN collecting TeX sources meant trawling many different author-maintained sites.)
Maintaining a 'back catalogue' of material is down to each package author, and as a result many packages have limited or no publicly-available source repository. The nearest you can get is probably the TeX Live SVN, which gets updated each time a package is changed in TeX Live. ...
there are only archives of complete TeXLive versions: ftp://tug.org/historic/systems/texlive/ ...
I'm actually working on an archive of CTAN using automated Mercurial repositories for the last two weeks. The CTAN content is mirrored daily and each CTAN package (with exceptions) is committed to its own Mercurial repository.
This is currently online as http://ctanhg.scharrer-online.de/, but not 100% finished yet. Also, it might not handle large loads well. You can get each archived version as ZIP or Mercurial clone.
Is there a database of Tex/LaTeX package bugs where one can report or track status?: No, and also:
You might know, you can download all packages from a mirror of CTAN. But CTAN itself is run by more or less three persons, who are serving there since many years. Without them, no CTAN.[1]
So if any reader of this question considers asking for more than the packages on CTAN, namely a bugzilla or whatever: We depend on people who contribute their work to maintain our infrastructure and even at the very heart of it there is a lack of people.
What is the preferred way to contact a package author? - TeX - LaTeX Meta Stack Exchange
You should first check the package manual and its README file (both usually under http://www.ctan.org/pkg/) for an email address
Please note that virtually all package authors do write these in their spare time and might be busy with their day job, so you should give them 1-2 weeks to respond, then write them a second email.
Several package authors are also reading the comp.text.tex usenet group and people often post package related issues there. However, you still should CC the author using a private email as well. He/she might overlook the post otherwise. Also it is a little rude to post it in public but not contact the author directly as well.
This varies from package author to package author. If you can find a (working) e-mail address, then this is usually the best way.
So, in other words: if I naively packaged my changes in the original someoneelsespackage.zip
and uploaded that to CTAN, then one of those poor souls volunteering to maintain CTAN would simply get a message, hopefully automatically identifying that such a package already exists but the originating email doesn't match, and so it will be refused outright - and thus I've managed to waste people's time for absolutely nothing. Then again, I could rename that to myversionofsomeoneelsespackage.zip
- that may pass through the automated checks, and even the judgment of maintainers; but is it really worth increasing all the noise (with identical pdf .docs, etc) for what is essentially a two lines patch? This is the main dilemma I have, that motivates this question...
www.ctab.org
" in your third xref, it should be "www.ctan.org
". indeed, the ctan maintainers are very hard working and conscientious. remember also that packages posted to ctan also go into tex live (unless they're not freely licensed or have some other restriction, such as being significantly obsolete). so a change of only two or three lines, as you point out, is a disservice to a lot of people.comp.text.tex
has seen some discussion about these sorts of matters.ctan at dante.de
) asking if they have a more current/reliable address. they often do have more information than is available in the public catalogue.