Uwe Stöhr wrote: > > Are you sure that everything done with gbrief can be reproduced 100% (I > > mean: 100%) with gbrief2? > > Yes as far as I know.
"As far as I know" is not enough. > > How about letters that use ERT commands that have been > > dropped in gbrief2? > > As far as I know there are no dropped commands. The only one I could found > id the command \BTX that was used for BTX-adresses. This has been dropped > with version 2.2 of g-brief before 2003. What about \Telefon, for instance? > > How about letters that include style files that rely on > > gbrief? For instance, my university's official LaTeX letter templates > > uses gbrief (not gbrief2). What you propose would break all my > > correspondances. > > This doesn't break any correspondance, you can use g-brief2 and get the > same output. I cannot, since gbrief is hardwired in the university's template, which I'm not allowed to change. > Note that g-brief is obsolete since 2003 now, Where is it declared obsolete? It's still shipped in the gbrief bundle, and I didn't find a statement in the docs that flag gbrief "obsolete". > and that g-brief > doesn't work on MiKTeX and I guess also not with TeXLive 2007, is a fact we > can't ignore. Providing a layout for a class that don't work with recent > LaTeX-systems cannot be a solution. It works if you patch marvosym, gbrief or downgrade marvosym. What I want to say is: we can just drop gbrief, if we feel like it. But converting gbrief documents automatically to gbrief2 is error-prone and will annoy people (like me) that rely on the original gbrief class. Those people might the continue to use their own private layout file. > Independent from LyX: Concerning your university, here at my faculty people > are happy when someone takes over to adapt the templates to recent > LaTeX-versions as they don't know the LaTeX details how to do this. So when > you prepare an actual template I'm sure it will be accepted. Your CI-department is obviously different to mine. > regards Uwe Jürgen
