Open
Description
This template doesn't work with the default packages anyway, so let's stop pretending it does.
The default installation of Texmaker on Ubuntu 16.04 & derivatives is missing abbreviations
, so they don't work. Unless you use any in your work based on the template, only warnings are shown. I think it required the BibLaTeX-extra
package too, but I'm not sure about that.
That same installation does contain intputenc
though, which https://github.com/AbertayHackers/Tex-Templates/pull/1 adds and which reportedly isn't present in the default installation of MacTeX. I think we can just list these 3 packages as "probable reasons for compilation failure"
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels
Activity
pshem commentedon May 16, 2017
I don't think there is much point in removing acronym examples, as they don't cause compilation failures, just warnings.
Non-standard package is used in an arbitrary way here, as all the mentioned packages are a part of the the texlive-full metapackage, which means that all of them are technically standard. I don't think it makes sense to limit ourselves to the texlive-latex-base(contents below) metapackage which every LaTeX distribution should(must? can be expected to?) contain.
I think every Tex distribution(texmaker, MacTeX, whatever it's called for windows + weird receipes for turning your favourite text editor into a TeX editor) contains a bit more than texlive-latex-base and it's a lot of pointless work to create out own baseline.
We should either go with texlive-latex-base, use texlive-latex-base + texlive-latex-extra or claim we require texlive-full. I'm not sure how complicated it is to manage LaTeX packages on OSX & Windows, but any other option smells like asking for trouble and overcomplication.
Fix logo link (#1)