Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-21 Thread Harald Weidner
Hello, Phillip Deackes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Syrus, could you please tell us how you got FrameMaker running? I have a >potato system, upgraded weekely using apt-get. FrameMaker will not run >at all, I get no error messages, I just get the $ prompt back again. Am >I perhaps missing some vit

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-20 Thread Syrus Nemat-Nasser
On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Phillip Deackes wrote: > Syrus Nemat-Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hmmm. Framemaker is running fine on my potato system. It does not seem > > to > > run over remote X, at least to a system running in 16 bit color depth. > > However, it certainly works under the co

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-20 Thread Phillip Deackes
Syrus Nemat-Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmmm. Framemaker is running fine on my potato system. It does not seem > to > run over remote X, at least to a system running in 16 bit color depth. > However, it certainly works under the correct set of circumstances. > The > problem is not with t

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-19 Thread Syrus Nemat-Nasser
On 19 Dec 1999, Paul Seelig wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Brutsche) writes: > > > > Well, it explicitly SAYS so on the website that it's a 2.1.2 binary. > > > > It does say that. It also say's it'll work with glibc 2.0.7, which is > > what slink uses. Imagine my disappointment... > > > Tha

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-17 Thread Ralf G. R. Bergs
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:27:11 -0600 (CST), Phil Brutsche wrote: >A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... > >> Well, it explicitly SAYS so on the website that it's a 2.1.2 binary. > >It does say that. It also say's it'll work with glibc 2.0.7, which is >what slink uses. Imagine

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-17 Thread Phil Brutsche
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... > Well, it explicitly SAYS so on the website that it's a 2.1.2 binary. It does say that. It also say's it'll work with glibc 2.0.7, which is what slink uses. Imagine my disappointment... --

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-17 Thread Ralf G. R. Bergs
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 17:51:17 -0600 (CST), Phil Brutsche wrote: >I can't run FrameMaker either with my slink setup; chances are that it's a >glibc2.1 binary, which is why it works under potato. Well, it explicitly SAYS so on the website that it's a 2.1.2 binary. -- Sign the EU petition against

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-16 Thread Phil Brutsche
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... > > installed it under Debian/slink. Unfortunately it doesn't run because > > it is linked to the following libraries which are not available under > > Debian (even not with potato): > > I can't answer your question about slink, but I ha

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-16 Thread Gary Hennigan
"Christopher S. Swingley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > installed it under Debian/slink. Unfortunately it doesn't run because > > it is linked to the following libraries which are not available under > > Debian (even not with potato): > > I can't answer your question about slink, but I had no t

Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 for LINUX

1999-12-16 Thread Christopher S. Swingley
> installed it under Debian/slink. Unfortunately it doesn't run because > it is linked to the following libraries which are not available under > Debian (even not with potato): I can't answer your question about slink, but I had no trouble installing the FrameMaker demo under potato (apt-getted t