Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2015-10-29, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 08:52:32PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: >>> On 10/28/2015 03:52 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >>> > >>> >It seems there are a few different ideas. Let me see if I can summarize >>> >them: >>> > >>> >1. A layout change can be made if it is supported by the current >>> >release of TeX Live and the previous release. > >>> I think we have long had an implicit policy like this: Don't break >>> Debian. But we could change the target: Don't break Ubuntu LTS and/or >>> latest Centos. Both of these are conservative without being glacial. I'm >>> not sure how much difference that would make in practice.
Probably not much. Debian is not that outdated anymore than it used to be. For example, on current Debian stable you get TeXLive 2014 if you install it via the .deb packages. Somebody would need to do a detailed comparison. >> I still think there is some use to making the policy well-defined and >> explicit. Yes. We should define it, but I have no strong preference for any of the proposed definitions. > I propose to make the oldest supported TeXLive (and maybe MikTeX) version > public for any release. What do you mean by supported? If supportd means the version that gets package updates, then this is too recent (there is always only one version getting updates at any time, currently TeXLive 2015). Georg
