Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:52:32 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Jeff Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of Grep 2.4 uploaded
In-Reply-To:	<200001202129.PAA06550@darwin.sfbr.org>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000123095121.26609G@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:

> There is some inconsistency with regard to where the man pages are
> placed in these recently announced ports (see below).

This was done on purpose, primarily for historical reasons.

When DJGPP ports of some of the packages were first released with
their man pages, a clone of the Unix `man' command was not yet
available.  So the only way to read man pages back then was through
info.exe.  In addition, the `man' directory and its subdirectories
were not part of the original DJGPP tree.  So the man pages were put
into `info'.

Nowadays, we do have a `man' clone that knows about the `man'
hierarchy.  However, if a new port would unzip the man pages into a
different directory, the old version of the man pages will be left
behind, and the user could see stale docs.  So, whenever the previous
port had its man pages inside `info', the new one puts them into
`info' as well.

> Would there be a
> problem with moving all man pages to `man/cat1' directory, or are there
> special reasons for the current organization?

You (or any other user) can do that on their machines with no adverse
consequences.  Note that only *.1* pages should go into `cat1', pages
with other extensions should go into their respective `catN'
directories (unformatted pages, if there are such, should go into
`manN' directories), because the `man' clone expects that organization
in the `man' tree.

- Raw text -