Am 16.07.2016 um 10:44 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
_you_ added. I do not remember a consensus about this. On the contrary, I told you more than once that I think this is the wrong approach.
I mean the feature of adding dependencies were added. I just use it.
File a bug report at MiKTeX, then. We cannot fix the missing dependency handling of LaTeX distributions.
That doesn't help us, since the linguistics manual is not compilable for TeXLive users on Windows anymore (if you don't have already ALL LaTeX packages installed), see the post I just sent.
As MiKTeX users with Internet access will automatically get all missing packages, the regression affects mostly TeXLive users.
This is not how it works. TL installs elocalloc when the user installs forest.
The point is that one needs to know what packages need to be installed. TeXLive is not telling anything to you if a package is missing. Windows quits it after a timeout and that's it. Ergo the user is lost.
Anyway, you miss the point: We cannot reliably track the sub- dependencies of packages, because these constantly change (elocalloc, for instance, is only a good year old). What happens if the next forest version does not need elocalloc anymore? Do you want to remove the dependency again?
No, it can be left. It does not harm to have LaTeX package installed that might not be used. It is much worse to have it not installed.
With your approach, you force people to actually use always the latest LaTeX distribution, and I think this is definitly the wrong direction.
No. If the current version requires something, we have to add it. Users of older versions can ignore the warning. However, I don't see a reason why people could not update to the latest version of a package. I mean it is not often the case that a package has a new dependency.
regards Uwe
