delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se> |
Message-Id: | <200101031535.QAA03152@father.ludd.luth.se> |
Subject: | Re: Two glitches for autoconf 2.49b |
In-Reply-To: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010103104332.1129D-100000@is> from Eli Zaretskii at "Jan 3, 2001 10:44:03 am" |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:35:01 +0100 (MET) |
X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
According to Eli Zaretskii: > It is an issue for the way `man' is written: it looks for man pages in > each directory mentioned in MANPATH and in its first-level > subdirectories, but only if those subdirectories match man* and cat* > patterns (the actual patterns are more complex than man*, to DTRT in > various special cases). It will not descend into deeper > subdirectories, and it will not look for foo.1 in a directory called > foobar/man/man5, say. The structure would be the "foo::bar" would live in man/man5/foo/bar. I'm not advocating '::'->'/', just pointing out how it would look. Right, MartinS
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright � 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |