Triggered by the question why should I not use the koma script classes results practically necessarily a consequence question: What packages are incompatible with KOMA-Script?

KOMA-Script offers scrhack (see documentation in KOMA-Script manual, chapter 16) to fix certain well-known problems with the packages:

  • hyperref (The hyperref hack in scrhack is only for very, very old versions of hyperref and does nothing for the current hyperref release),
  • float,
  • floatrow,
  • setspace (in older versions corrections took place, in the current version no corrections are needed),
  • listings and
  • nomencl: The current version (year 2017) of scrhack provides a hack for nomencl that not only increases nomencl's compatibility with KOMA-Script classes but also provides several new features (all from package tocbasic) for nomencl, e.g., automatic running heads or numbered heading. AFAIK this can be used not only in combination with KOMA-Script classes but also in combination with standard classes.

In the question incompatibilities between babelfrench and koma script classes? special problems of \usepackage[french][babel] are reported.

Which packages do you know having problems with KOMA-Script?

  • 3
    geometry resets the from typepage calculated margins if you don't use the option pass (for showframe). Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 18:49
  • In the meantime, setspace is also supprted by scrhack
    – Johannes_B
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 12:04
  • I'm confused on hyperref (even after checking scrhack docs). Is KOMAScript broken with no workaround with hyperref (as I thought from the question), or has the problem been fixed for good? Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 16:58
  • 2
    @Blaisorblade for current version of hyperref are no corections neccessary. The maintainer of hyperref is very active ...
    – Mensch
    Commented Jul 15, 2017 at 17:39
  • 1
    @Mico Please see the changed question ...
    – Mensch
    Commented May 2, 2020 at 12:20

1 Answer 1


Markus Kohm, the author of KOMA-Script (see his initials), utters about this frequently, but unluckily for TeX.SE usually in German.

Also I would prefer to say, some packages are not fully compatible instead of they are incompatible, because in most cases they work partially and often there’s a workaround.

  • Every package, that makes a redefinition of titling and heading, is potentially not fully compatible. A well-known example is titlesec, where here on TeX.SE we have already a related question: Incompatibilities between KOMA-Script and titlesec.

  • Also packages with a heavy redefinition of footnote related stuff are potentially not fully compatible. I myself noticed, that footnotebackref only works with an active symbol (the footnote number is not turned into an active link, confer package manual).
    By the way: This works fine:

    \usepackage[symbol=${}^{\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow}$]{footnotebackref}% needs "hyperref"
  • The caption package is according to its package documentation not fully compatible. But actually this was quite more serious in older versions both of caption and KOMA-Script (see also comment below of caption author Axel Sommerfeldt).

  • Package minitoc changes \@sect and so breaks quite a number of KOMA-adaptions to section.

  • Packages tocloft, titletoc and tocbibind also are not fully compatible with KOMA-script.

As old scrpage2 or new scrlayer-scrpage is part of KOMA-Script (but is a package and can be used with other classes!):

  • Package xwatermark relies on fancyhdr, so with scrpage2/scrlayer-scrpage you will get error messages.

  • 12
    Regarding my caption package: The optional argument of \setcapwidth (offered by KOMA-Script) is the only thing I'm aware of which is not supported when loading the caption package. Especially everything (commands & options) the caption package offers IS compatible with the KOMA-Script document classes, and I'm trying hard to keep the caption package as compatible with KOMA-Script as possible. So in fact the caption package supports the KOMA-Script classes.
    – user2574
    Commented Sep 20, 2012 at 5:44
  • @AxelSommerfeldt: Yes, you wrote about that in the manual, and because of that I referred to it.
    – Speravir
    Commented Sep 20, 2012 at 16:23
  • 4
    I for my part would say “to be expected” instead of “not fully compatible”. When I load a package like titlesec and use it to redefine \chapter, say, I cannot expect that KOMA's definition still holds... the same is true for footnotes.
    – cgnieder
    Commented Sep 20, 2012 at 17:25
  • @cgnieder: What? :-) It’s a different point of view, I guess, but feel free to rephrase my writing. (My English is not the best on earth.)
    – Speravir
    Commented Sep 20, 2012 at 17:34
  • 1
    tocloft, titletoc and tocbibind also are not fully compatible with KOMA-script, can you add it to the list?
    – Johannes_B
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 12:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .