On 2016-10-08, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 07:53:13PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> It does not suffice to test whether compilation runs without an error. >> This does in no way guarantee that the output is OK. > I see. I suppose it comes down to whether we think that the proposed > changes have a better chance of fixing something than breaking > something. As Jean-Pierre pointed out, we already have a case where > such changes fixed something. I don't know enough to estimate what the > chance is that the proposed changes lead to an error that is not > reported by compilation and that can only be seen by manual inspection. In addition to possible wrong output, there can be other cases of intentional non-default settings. In the case of "banned" math-packages, it may be the intention to ensure compilability with a minimal TeX installation. As compilation with pdflatex is a must for the docs, the "banning" ensures the problem is spotted by any editor. A compilation error due to missing packages would then mean that the content should be changed to ensure the document can be compiled also without packages that are present with a full installation but not in a custom "cut-down" installation. I don't know whether this is the intention here, but I would give Uwe as maintainer the say about the correct settings. Günter
