1

I just installed texlive on my windows 10 machine using chocolatey as follows:

choco install texlive --params="'/collections:latexrecommended'" --execution-timeout=14400

I deliberately picked the latexrecommended collection because I would like to check whether this will result in better compile times than the full scheme as outlined by my previous question.

After completing the installation, I tried to compile a tex file which makes use of the glossaries package, but the compilation failed because glossaries apparently is not part of the latexrecommended collection.

I then ran the following command:

tlmgr install glossaries

Which seemed to go find, then I tried to recompile as follows:

latexmk -pdf template.tex

Now I am getting a new error:

! LaTeX Error: File `mfirstuc.sty' not found.

I was under the impression that tlmgr would handle all the dependencies for me when I did something like tlmgr install <package_name> I see now that this is perhaps not the case?

How do I install glossaries such that no .sty dependencies are required during compile time?

user32882
  • 1,594
  • 2
    tlmgr has support for package dependencies, but those have to be specified manually, which is not done for that many packages. You will have to install the missing packages one by one. Many people install the recommended full TeX live, which includes all packages, so don't have to worry about missing packages. – moewe Sep 25 '21 at 08:32
  • @moewe Thanks. I installed the missing packages and it worked. As I mentioned in the previous question (linked in original post) I am intentionally avoiding the full install because I would like to see if my compile times improve. The full install on windows was causing very high compile times for simple documents which would make things almost unworkable for me. – user32882 Sep 25 '21 at 08:34
  • 1
    If you get any noticable time difference from not installing full then tex must be searching the filesystem to load files rather than using the hashed ls-R file lookup (for which the size of the search tree makes essentially no measurable difference) – David Carlisle Sep 25 '21 at 09:22
  • @DavidCarlisle At first glance, it looks like the gains on compilation time appear rather minimal. How can I establish that TeX is searching the filesystem or not? Is there a programmatic way of doing this? Would be happy to look into it... – user32882 Sep 25 '21 at 09:58
  • pdflatex --kpathsea-debug=2 x.tex should show (amongst other things) kdebug:hash_lookup(x.tex) => /usr/local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/tex/latex/tools/ /usr/local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/tex/latex-dev/tools/ – David Carlisle Sep 25 '21 at 10:23
  • Running the command generates the /local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/tex/latex/tools/ but not the /local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/tex/latex-dev/tools – user32882 Sep 25 '21 at 10:32
  • oh that's ok probably latex-dev (pre release of the next release of latex) is not in the smaller install so you only have one copy so that means that x.tex (and all other standard files) are found from a hashed copy of an ls-R listing so the size of the search tree will not make any real difference. if it input the file without the hash_lookup debug line then that would have indicated that tex had searched the whole of texmf-dist/tex with time more or less proportional to the number of files in that tree – David Carlisle Sep 25 '21 at 11:04

0 Answers0