Your message dated Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:48:25 +0000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#463891: man-db: /usr/local should come before /usr
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: man-db
Version: 2.5.0-4
Severity: normal
Just as /usr/local/bin comes before /usr/bin, /usr/local/share/man and
/usr/local/man (if found) should come before /usr/share/man and
/usr/man (if found), so that man pages for locally installed programs
are found first, just as the commands themselves are.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (700, 'testing'), (601, 'unstable'), (600, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages man-db depends on:
ii bsdmainutils 6.1.10 collection of more utilities from
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.18 Debian configuration management sy
ii dpkg 1.14.16.6 package maintenance system for Deb
ii groff-base 1.18.1.1-15 GNU troff text-formatting system (
ii libc6 2.7-6 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libgdbm3 1.8.3-3 GNU dbm database routines (runtime
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-11 compression library - runtime
man-db recommends no packages.
-- debconf information:
man-db/build-database: true
man-db/rebuild-database: true
* man-db/install-setuid: false
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:27:54AM +0000, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Colin Watson wrote:
> > $ PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin manpath
> > /usr/share/man:/usr/local/man:/usr/local/share/man:/usr/man
> > $ PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin manpath
> > /usr/local/man:/usr/local/share/man:/usr/share/man:/usr/man
>
> This works fine for me. I hadn't understood that the order of the elements
> in /etc/manpath.config was unimportant, and for me it was /usr/sbin vs
> /usr/local/sbin that was causing the problem in my PATH.
Ah, right. The ordering of MANDATORY_MANPATH does matter, but the
ordering of *_MAP doesn't matter except that the first entry for any
given key wins.
Closing your bug with this message, then.
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
