Integrating Local Additions provides a nice explanation of how to manipulate TEXINPUTS or register a local texmf tree.

Q: When integrating local additions, is there a reason to prefer one approach over the other?

I'm guessing that TEXINPUTS is just regarded as the quick and dirty approach while registering a local texmf tree may be a better idea if you have a lot of files within a logical directory structure to which latex needs to be pointed.

If I'm missing something here I'd love to hear about it :)

This question is a follow-up to my post Texmf tree with MikTeX

2 Answers 2


TeX itself uses TEXINPUTS and it can cause an error if it is also set by the user. An almost secure way is to use a local texmf tree. With MiKTeX you can have several of them. For Linux you have TEXMF, TEXMFLOCAL and TEXMFHOME. The latter do not need a `texhash´ command, it is searched recursively by TeX.

  • 4
    I have never heard of using TEXINPUTS causing trouble if used correctly. It is intended to be used by the user, surely? (And by used correctly, I mean typically with a trailing colon, to insert the directories spesified by the texmf.conf file(s) at the end.) Mar 1, 2011 at 12:04
  • I have several TeXLive versions and ConTeXt minimals installed and run permanent into trouble when using TEXINPUTS and switching between ConTeXt and PDFTeX
    – user2478
    Mar 1, 2011 at 12:37
  • If you say so, but I remain skeptical in the absense of more detailed evidence. Mar 1, 2011 at 13:42
  • 2
    I know that on MikTeX 2.8 TEXINPUTS is not even initially defined. The user must define it and initialize it to the path of interest. I played with it---adding, deleting, etc. No issues so far.
    – lowndrul
    Mar 1, 2011 at 15:09
  • 1
    The MikTeX documentation specifically states that TEXINPUTS is used to resolve \input. That being the case it has no connection to 'using a local texmf tree'. The document linked to by the OP, has itself a link to the ref I mentioned.
    – hsmyers
    Feb 21, 2013 at 4:24

TEXINPUTS is easier and works best for ad-hoc files. If you use the same files with different jobs, and particularly if you have other kinds of files such as fonts, you are best off using a Texmf tree because you do not need to manage environment variables and the Texlive command-line tools understand the Texmf tree better.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.