[tex-live] Updating TeXLive 2010 using tlgmr - esint.sty missing

[George N. White III]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:27 AM, SKL <nn99876 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 2011, at 23:12, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
>
>> On 2011-09-13 at 22:28:19 +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>>> You can probably still install fonts for MacTeX 2011 with
>>>   tlmgr install lm
> yep, this did work and did solve the problem for MT/TL2011 as well. Thanks!
>
>>>
>>> The reason why they are missing is because they belong to
>>> collection-fontsrecommended. If they would belong to
>>> collection-basic, they would be included in basic installation.
>>
>> Sure, but they don't belong there.  collection-basic provides plain
>> TeX and LaTeX and is supposed to be small, especially because the new
>> engines are able to use system fonts and for pdfTeX the OTF are
>> useless.

You will never get everyone to agree on what should be included, so we
should defer to
those with wide experience to make sensible choices, and recognize
that those choices
mean some users need additional packages.

>> IMO the problem is caused by fontspec and should be fixed there.  Why
>> should one be forced to install a font which one doesn't use?

As a fallback for error recovery and to support "standard" examples.
For example, any TeX
system that has an "Xlatex" should be able to format sample2e.tex.

>> BTW, fontspec loads the metrics only, the font doesn't appear in the
>> PDF file.
>
> Of course you experts will know best what the most elegant solution to the problem at hand is. From my limited experience though it seems to me that adding lm fonts to the MacBasic distro is easier (and quicker) than fixing fontspec, so maybe this should be attacked first as a "quick fix"?
>
> It seems to me that as it stands now XeTeX in MacBasic is broken (at least if one wants to use fontspec, which is the primary reason why I use XeTeX at least), and that one simply can run "sudo tlmgr install lm" to fix it might be obvious to TeXperts, but maybe not to us pedestrian users...
>

I think this the key point -- what is needed is:

1)  clear information for users to indicate that some tasks may
require installing additional distro packages

2) ways to help users determine which additional packages they should install

SSD's mean the notion that "disk is cheap" no longer applies, and
people really do need TeX systems configured for their task set.   As
this discussion has shown, some effort is needed to obtain a TeX
system that is tuned for a particular set of tasks.  Having a package
manager makes it possible to install just the packages you need, so
what is missing is a way to determine which packages you need for a
given task.   MiKTeX on-demand package installs can help, but it
doesn't handle every situtation and requires internet or
a local mirror.

The BasicTeX document gives a pretty good idea of what can be done
using BasicTeX.  I think it would be helpful to add a section on
overcoming limitations of BasicTeX for particular use cases:

1.  you need macros not present in BasicTeX

2.  you need fonts not included in BasicTeX

3.  you need a "helper" program


-- 
George N. White III <aa056 at chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia