Dear Bob, Thanks for the valuable suggestion. The problem of including figures is solved using the graphicx package. Thank you Pushparaj On 8/3/05, Ian Malone <ibm21@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bob Taylor wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 14:48 +0100, Ian Malone wrote: > > >>Pushparaj Shetty wrote: > > >>>On 8/2/05, Daniel Normolle wrote: > > >>>>Pushparaj Shetty wrote: > > <snip> > > >> > The documentclass does not support the psfig , which is essential for > >> > including figures. > >> > It gives the following error message: > >> > > >> > ! Undefined control sequence. > >> > <argument> \psfig > >> > > >> > It worked fine in redhat 9.0. > >> > Please tell me how to get the same latex as in RedHat linux 9.0. > > >>I could only find <http://www.lbl.gov/ICSD/CIS/UNIX/TeX/psfig.html>, > >>which talks about documentstyle, so quite old. > > >>Is that what you're doing? I also note that my MikTeX (Windows atm) > >>doesn't have psfig installed by default, nor is it in the LaTeX users > >>guide. Is there any reason you can't use the graphicx package instead? > >>(This appears to have superseeded the graphics package mentioned in > >>the LaTeX user's guide 2nd edition, psfig is nowhere mentioned in that > >>book) > > > In FC3, psfig.sty is in "/usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/misc/psfig.sty" > > while graphics.sty and graphicx.sty are in > > "/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/graphics". All 3 are in the basic tex rpm. I > > would presume they are in the same package in FC4. > > > > Yes, it's on my FC3 tetex too, and CTAN, so without looking through the > FC4 rpm itself I'd assume it is there. A test document worked using the > 2e \usepackage idiom, so I'd suggest the OP try that. The following > does suggest that, while not obsolete, it is probably better to use > graphicx than psfig: > <http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=impgraph> > > -- > imalone > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list >
