I'm writing a play (specifically, a musical). Scripts have fairly complex and fairly specific formatting demands, so, as a professional LaTeX typesetter, writing it in LaTeX was a no-brainer. There are four or five different packages in the library for writing scripts and I tried most of them, but, well, I ended up basically re-writing Robert Jahrling's "stage.cls" from scratch, adding a bunch of new features and whatnot.

I imagine most people who write a package, even for themselves, figure that their package is better than what's already in the library; that doesn't mean it really is. (Cue rueful chuckle.) Cluttering up the catalog isn't a Good Thing. On the other hand, if nobody contributed packages, we wouldn't have any, and that would be terrible.

So I looked into making a Proper Package. Yikes. Creating the .ins and .dtx files looks like at least as much work as I spent creating the .sty file itself.

But that's okay. I'm not complaining about the work required to create a proper, adequately documented package. I'm just not certain that there's actually anybody that would care. The subset of active LaTeX users who are creating scripts is probably fairly small. Further, if somebody is just trying to make an existing script look good, some of the existing packages are adequate for that purpose. Mine is specifically helpful if one is changing or revising the script; you're writing something new, so character names might change, scenes get relocated; all that sort of bookkeeping that LaTeX can do so brilliantly but that the existing packages don't really take advantage of.

So. Any suggestions for how I might determine if there was sufficient interest/need in Dave's 'theatre.sty' package to warrant taking the time to prepare it as a Proper Package?

  • 3
    There's no requirement to have a package .ins and/or .dtx. Documentation is important though. – Werner Sep 11 '18 at 19:42
  • 1
    @Snarke Well, I just mentioned one example where this has worked out, but it is probably easiest to just upload the first version to CTAN (because it will go to the major distributions that way) and then see whether feedback arrives. Quite a few packages have started by uploading a simpler version to CTAN. – TeXnician Sep 11 '18 at 20:15
  • 2
    The big plus of CTAN is that the packages there usually (license and a few other things permitting) make it to TeX live and MikTeX. That makes it much easier for users to install and update your package. A second plus is that on CTAN your package will be found. When I need a package for a specific purpose that I have not dealt with before I look up suitable search terms on CTAN. – moewe Sep 11 '18 at 20:15
  • 2
    Snarke, I encourage you to put it on ctan. You need to document your class file but you do not necessarily need a dtx file (personally, I don't like the format, but that's just me:). @TeXnician Given the extensive documentation available for tikz-uml, and the effort that has gone into writing this, I think that it should be available from ctan. I am sure that there are people need the "advanced functionality" that it provides but have no idea that it exists. If it were available from ctan, and hence part of texlive etc, then the people who need this code would be much more likely to find it. – Andrew Sep 12 '18 at 0:47
  • 2
    Is there a difference for you, once you have done the hard work already, if it is available for all and used by two others, ten others, or 25 others? If it helps just one person, you did a good job. – Johannes_B Sep 12 '18 at 4:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.