Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:52:32 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Jeff Williams 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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Precedence: bulk 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.