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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

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