MAN PAGES
Hi all, I using testing and I suspect that sometime during a upgrade I have hosed up my man pages db? Anyway if I open xman and then manual page and look for a man page for example on mp3burn, I can see it in the list, but when I select it, it opens empty. I have tried it with other man pages and all are blank. Did I forget to reset something after a upgrade?? I remember having to do that one other time, but can not recall the command that I had to use. All help is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Don __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MAN PAGES
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 07:13:12AM -0700, D. wrote: > I using testing and I suspect that sometime during a > upgrade I have hosed up my man pages db? Anyway if I > open xman and then manual page and look for a man page > for example on mp3burn, I can see it in the list, but > when I select it, it opens empty. I have tried it > with other man pages and all are blank. Does just 'man mp3burn' work OK? -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MAN PAGES
-- D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Thursday, 03 October 2002, 07:13 AM -0700): > I using testing and I suspect that sometime during a > upgrade I have hosed up my man pages db? Anyway if I > open xman and then manual page and look for a man page > for example on mp3burn, I can see it in the list, but > when I select it, it opens empty. I have tried it > with other man pages and all are blank. What happens when you try to read the same manual page in a term window? (i.e., using 'man mp3burn') I had a problem for awhile when using Slack where I couldn't read man pages in xman, but could in a term. I fixed it by switching to Debian.. ;-) If you can still see them in the console, it's more likely that there's a problem with xman or your xlibraries. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
man pages: dangling symlinks
is there any kind of process by which dangling symlinks can be resolved? ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MAN PAGES (FIXED)
--- Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 07:13:12AM -0700, D. wrote: > > I using testing and I suspect that sometime > during a > > upgrade I have hosed up my man pages db? Anyway > if I > > open xman and then manual page and look for a man > page > > for example on mp3burn, I can see it in the list, > but > > when I select it, it opens empty. I have tried it > > with other man pages and all are blank. > > Does just 'man mp3burn' work OK? > > -- > Colin Watson > [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I tried the 'man mp3burn' and received the man command not found/unknown one of those so I knew I had a problem. I did a apt-get install man-db and then everything worked ok. Thanks for the help. Don > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dwww man page display
I have two systems running dwww with apache. On one, man pages display nicely, but on the other I get what appear to be ANSI codes for bold and other formatting. On the system with the broken display, I also installed man2html, and pages appear properly there. I've gone through and installed anything remotely sounding like text-to-html or similar, but am having no luck. Are there specific packages I should look for, other than those listed on the .deb page? Thanks, - Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: man pages: dangling symlinks
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:25:00PM -0700, ben wrote: > is there any kind of process by which dangling symlinks can be resolved? Er, that depends. Which ones? Either remove them or get them to point somewhere that exists. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: man pages: dangling symlinks
On Thursday 03 October 2002 10:19 pm, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:25:00PM -0700, ben wrote: > > is there any kind of process by which dangling symlinks can be resolved? > > Er, that depends. Which ones? Either remove them or get them to point > somewhere that exists. > > Cheers, hi colin, thanks for the response. i guess the question should probably be, how do dangling symlinks come to occur in the first place? for example: me@mybox:$ man gconftool man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/gconftool.1.gz is a dangling symlink No manual entry for gconftool should I construe from this that there never was a man page for gconftool, or is it the case that it simply failed to install? in the event that there is a man page for each of the many various apps that return this message on man requests, what's the best way to fix this? am i making sense here? ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: man pages: dangling symlinks
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:15:02AM -0700, ben wrote: > On Thursday 03 October 2002 10:19 pm, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:25:00PM -0700, ben wrote: > > > is there any kind of process by which dangling symlinks can be resolved? > > > > Er, that depends. Which ones? Either remove them or get them to point > > somewhere that exists. > > > > Cheers, > > hi colin, > > thanks for the response. i guess the question should probably be, how do > dangling symlinks come to occur in the first place? Bugs in packages, often related to update-alternatives. > for example: > > me@mybox:$ man gconftool > man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/gconftool.1.gz is a dangling symlink > No manual entry for gconftool > > should I construe from this that there never was a man page for > gconftool, or is it the case that it simply failed to install? I think update-alternatives has failed to decide properly which of the two possible man pages for gconftool should be used. This could be a package bug or a bug in u-a itself; it's hard to say. > in the event that there is a man page for each of the many various > apps that return this message on man requests, what's the best way to > fix this? Does 'update-alternatives --config gconftool' sort it out? Make sure to keep a record of the current state of the /etc/alternatives/gconftool* symlinks and the contents of /var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/gconftool before doing that, so that you have the material with which to file a bug report. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: man pages: dangling symlinks
On Friday 04 October 2002 01:52 am, Colin Watson wrote: [snip] > > Does 'update-alternatives --config gconftool' sort it out? Make sure to > keep a record of the current state of the /etc/alternatives/gconftool* > symlinks and the contents of /var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/gconftool before > doing that, so that you have the material with which to file a bug > report. > > Cheers, thanks for the hints. i'll set about those methods and see how it goes. i've been googling on the subject and it seems like this issue goes back a few years. i saw one post from 6/98. is this going to be sorted any time in the near future? ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: man pages: dangling symlinks
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:39:55AM -0700, ben wrote: > thanks for the hints. i'll set about those methods and see how it > goes. i've been googling on the subject and it seems like this issue > goes back a few years. i saw one post from 6/98. is this going to be > sorted any time in the near future? There's no single "this" to be sorted, and there's no magic bullet that can make dangling symlinks go away for the rest of time. So no, probably not. Keep filing bugs on affected packages. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: man pages: dangling symlinks
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:15:02AM -0700, ben wrote: > On Thursday 03 October 2002 10:19 pm, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:25:00PM -0700, ben wrote: > > > is there any kind of process by which dangling symlinks can be resolved? > > > > Er, that depends. Which ones? Either remove them or get them to point > > somewhere that exists. > > > > Cheers, > > hi colin, > > thanks for the response. i guess the question should probably be, how do > dangling symlinks come to occur in the first place? I recently looked at a number of dangling symlinks (some of which were for man pages) I had in /etc/alternatives. For all but one of these I eventually traced the problem back to debs installed while potato was still testing. Some version installed the symlink; a later update either didn't require the symlink or changed the name of the file to which the symlink should link. For example, an early potato deb for elvis installed /usr/man/man1/ctags-elvis.1.gz and in later packages this file changed to /usr/share/man/man1/elvtags.1.gz. During the update process the first packages gets removed, but the prerm script does not remove the alternative. If there is no other alterntive, you end up with a broken symlink, and update-alternatives gets set to manual mode for that alternative. When the new package is installed, the symlink doesn't get updated because update-alternatives is now in maunal mode. The fix is to run "update-alternatives --config [name]" to reset the symlink or "update-alternative --remove [name] [dangling_symlink_path]" to remove the symlink entirely. > > for example: > > me@mybox:$ man gconftool > man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/gconftool.1.gz is a dangling symlink > No manual entry for gconftool > > should I construe from this that there never was a man page for gconftool, or > is it the case that it simply failed to install? in the event that there is a > man page for each of the many various apps that return this message on man > requests, what's the best way to fix this? > > am i making sense here? > > ben > > > -- Jerome msg05393/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dwww man page display
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:06:16AM -0700, Bob George wrote:
> I have two systems running dwww with apache. On one, man pages display
> nicely, but on the other I get what appear to be ANSI codes for bold and
> other formatting. On the system with the broken display, I also
> installed man2html, and pages appear properly there. I've gone through
> and installed anything remotely sounding like text-to-html or similar,
> but am having no luck. Are there specific packages I should look for,
> other than those listed on the .deb page?
Check that /etc/groff/man.local and /etc/groff/mdoc.local are in sync on
the two machines. You want the versions that look like this:
.\" This file is loaded after an-old.tmac.
.\" Put any local modifications to an-old.tmac here.
.
.if n \{\
. \" Debian: Map \(oq to ' rather than ` in nroff mode for devices other
. \" than utf8.
. if !'\*[.T]'utf8' \
.tr \[oq]'
.
. \" Debian: Disable the use of SGR (ANSI colour) escape sequences by
. \" grotty.
. if '\V[GROFF_SGR]'' \
.output x X tty: sgr 0
.
. \" Debian: Map \- to the Unicode HYPHEN-MINUS character, to make
. \" searching in man pages easier.
. if '\*[.T]'utf8' \
.char \- \N'45'
.\}
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dwww man page display
Colin Watson wrote: > [...] > Check that /etc/groff/man.local and /etc/groff/mdoc.local are in sync on > the two machines. You want the versions that look like this: That was it. I must've missed an update to man.local during an upgrade. man.local.dpkg-dist was there, and I just copied it to man.local, and all is well now. Thanks Colin! - Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
exim.conf for the man with two ISPs
Dear fellas, outgoing mail should be sent thru my ISP's SMTP server,
so my exim.conf has
smarthost:
driver = domainlist
transport = remote_smtp
route_list = "* ms46.myisp.com bydns_a"
end
But let's say now I have and an additional ISP that I sometimes
connect to, with its different SMTP server. What would be a good way
to tell exim [3] that that rule should be different short of editing
exim.conf for those calls? I can make a script: do_something;pon isp2
but what should that something be, short of an ed(1) script to edit
exim.conf?
Question two: actually that second ISP has no SMTP server, so I
thought of a neat rule that would cover both ISPs: first try to
deliver an email directly, then if rejected ("we don't accept mail
from known dialups", etc.), try thru myisp.com... how does one write
that?
BTW, my setup is fine but sometimes I turn off the computer with
unsent messages and turn it on a few days later and exim sends notices
that messages have not been delivered for more than a day, but it send
them quite understandably thru my ISP as it was warning the sender
which was my full address. So in /etc/aliases I put
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:jidanni
but I don't think that worked as /etc/aliases is for local addresses
or something, so how do I tell exim that if it ever sees a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] it should send it to jidanni and not out to the
net and back when sending its 'day old warning' messages?
By the way, in the official examples we see:
route_list = dict.ref.book mail-1.ref.book:mail-2.ref.book byname
Would the average person write .com or .org where he writes .book or
is he talking about subdomains or something?
--
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to make the man formatting better.
On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 07:07, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 11:28:34AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.15.0354 +0200]: > > > Most of Debian's man pages are written this way. > > > > So why does dh_make provide manpage.sgml.ex and even a commented > > docbook-to-man call in debian/rules? The message I extracted from that > > was "Debian really prefers you to use SGML for manpages..." > > dh_make has all kinds of weird ideas, and isn't even close to > authoritative ... note that it also provides manpage.1.ex, though. > > -- > Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > -- I would suspect that Debian does prefer SGML for manpages because SGML is more of an *officially sanctioned* standard that is meant to be able to produce output to a wide variety of presentation methods, while groff, being unstructured (and from past experiences of troff from my Unix days and runoff from my VMS days, not always absolutely consistent in output produced and features supported/implemented) leaves room for difficult to implement formatting decisions (primarily the errors, like forgetting to switch off bold or italics,) and requires translations that may not always be faithful when you want to draw upon viewers such as a web browser (although I salute the performance of man2html on this matter.) -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to make the man formatting better.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 12:07:35PM -0400, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 07:07, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 11:28:34AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > > also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.15.0354 +0200]: > > > > Most of Debian's man pages are written this way. > > > > > > So why does dh_make provide manpage.sgml.ex and even a commented > > > docbook-to-man call in debian/rules? The message I extracted from that > > > was "Debian really prefers you to use SGML for manpages..." > > > > dh_make has all kinds of weird ideas, and isn't even close to > > authoritative ... note that it also provides manpage.1.ex, though. > > I would suspect that Debian does prefer SGML for manpages Speaking as the man-db maintainer, nope, sorry, we don't. Whether we should is a whole different argument. Actually, I think SGML is way overkill for the average man page - the SGML example I ship in man-db is almost three times as large as the groff example, and the source is significantly less readable. Most man pages aren't all that much longer than that pair of examples, and the ability of Debian developers and documenters to write them conveniently without having to fight with complex tools is important. Also, it's rare for SGML man pages to come from upstream developers, and consistency is important. There are SGML- and XML-derived standards that are very worthwhile documentation formats, but considering how long man pages have been around and how widely implementations are deployed I think it's better to push those formats for other forms of documentation. > because SGML is more of an *officially sanctioned* standard that is > meant to be able to produce output to a wide variety of presentation > methods, while groff, being unstructured (and from past experiences of > troff from my Unix days and runoff from my VMS days, not always > absolutely consistent in output produced and features > supported/implemented) As far as Debian is concerned, only groff matters - we don't ship any other [nt]roff implementations, and man-db is configured to use groff. > leaves room for difficult to implement formatting decisions (primarily > the errors, like forgetting to switch off bold or italics,) and > requires translations that may not always be faithful when you want to > draw upon viewers such as a web browser (although I salute the > performance of man2html on this matter.) groff's HTML device is getting better all the time, too. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to make the man formatting better.
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 12:28, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 12:07:35PM -0400, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 07:07, Colin Watson wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 11:28:34AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > > > also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.15.0354 +0200]: > > > > > Most of Debian's man pages are written this way. > > > > > > > > So why does dh_make provide manpage.sgml.ex and even a commented > > > > docbook-to-man call in debian/rules? The message I extracted from that > > > > was "Debian really prefers you to use SGML for manpages..." > > > > > > dh_make has all kinds of weird ideas, and isn't even close to > > > authoritative ... note that it also provides manpage.1.ex, though. > > > > I would suspect that Debian does prefer SGML for manpages > > Speaking as the man-db maintainer, nope, sorry, we don't. Whether we > should is a whole different argument. Actually, I think SGML is way > overkill for the average man page - the SGML example I ship in man-db is > almost three times as large as the groff example, and the source is > significantly less readable. Most man pages aren't all that much longer > than that pair of examples, and the ability of Debian developers and > documenters to write them conveniently without having to fight with > complex tools is important. Yes - re-reading how I'd written that, I mis-spoke myself. I suspect that up the policy chain, from what I'd read from links to threads reported about Debian-Doc in the Debian Weekly News, it leans more to SGML in general for any documentation, regardless of what works best in specific situations, in the interest of "standards and universal portability". Having coded in troff, runoff, Script on IBM mainframes, and SGML before spending a decade in the desktop publishing field with PageMaker, QuarkXPress and (ick!) Ventura Publisher, I know how nice it is to use groff for quick but multi-environmental formatting, as well as presenting chessboards ;) I even found that with a few macros, I could even trust print reporters with groff! I wouldn't even consider having them work with a text editor and an SGML template. > > Also, it's rare for SGML man pages to come from upstream developers, and > consistency is important. There are SGML- and XML-derived standards that > are very worthwhile documentation formats, but considering how long man > pages have been around and how widely implementations are deployed I > think it's better to push those formats for other forms of > documentation. > I heartily concur with that sentiment - in the same way that I would not resort to TeX for a quick TODO list for myself as it is overkill, SGML doesn't necessarily *fit* as the best solution everywhere, particularly if it involves porting a mass of documents that are working fine to another system. That really would only make sense if groff was to be judged as otherwise unused and questionable to support/ship any further - the same as in insisting to support traditional consumer audio cassette tapes as a storage (or boot) medium. > > because SGML is more of an *officially sanctioned* standard that is > > meant to be able to produce output to a wide variety of presentation > > methods, while groff, being unstructured (and from past experiences of > > troff from my Unix days and runoff from my VMS days, not always > > absolutely consistent in output produced and features > > supported/implemented) > > As far as Debian is concerned, only groff matters - we don't ship any > other [nt]roff implementations, and man-db is configured to use groff. Which makes plenty of sense, so long as nobody launches a Debian Solaris or Debian UnixWare project ;) > > > leaves room for difficult to implement formatting decisions (primarily > > the errors, like forgetting to switch off bold or italics,) and > > requires translations that may not always be faithful when you want to > > draw upon viewers such as a web browser (although I salute the > > performance of man2html on this matter.) > > groff's HTML device is getting better all the time, too. > > Cheers, > > -- > Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to make the man formatting better.
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.17.1828 +0200]: > Speaking as the man-db maintainer, nope, sorry, we don't. Whether we > should is a whole different argument. Actually, I think SGML is way > overkill for the average man page - the SGML example I ship in man-db is > almost three times as large as the groff example, and the source is > significantly less readable. Most man pages aren't all that much longer > than that pair of examples, and the ability of Debian developers and > documenters to write them conveniently without having to fight with > complex tools is important. After following his advice I have to concur. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck women who want to be equal to men lack imagination. msg02286/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: paper size not honored by man -t command
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 11:31:45AM +0800, Ridzwan Abdullah wrote: > I have just installed a Debian 3.0 system and have discovered a > perculiar thing. Whenever I print a manual page using the 'man -t > subject | lpr' command I always get a printout fomatted for a US > letter sized page although my /etc/papersize setting is set to A4 > and my printcap also specifies A4 size paper. During installation, > I have always consistently specified A4 size whenever applicable > and at no time specified US-Letter size. Does troff (used by the -t > option) defaults to US-Letter or is there any other configuration > files that I have missed? troff in Debian 3.0 should honour /etc/papersize. If you have gs installed, try 'man -t | gs -sDEVICE=bbox -'. For A4, the last two numbers on the BoundingBox lines should be close to 540 and 800; for Letter they should be close to 540 and 750. If that test passes, then you should probably look at your printing configuration. > BTW, I am using a postscript printer and use LPRng and apsfilter on > my system. Although the manual page for lpr states that the -t > option is obsoleted, I find its the only way I can get a nicely > formatted printout of a man page - other methods results in a badly > formatted one using the awful fixed courier font. The -t option to lpr has pretty much nothing to do with the -t option to man. The former specifies what lpr takes as input, while the latter makes man call groff in a different way. The -t option to man isn't obsolete. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: paper size not honored by man -t command
> troff in Debian 3.0 should honour /etc/papersize. If you have gs > installed, try 'man -t | gs -sDEVICE=bbox -'. For A4, the last > two numbers on the BoundingBox lines should be close to 540 and 800; for > Letter they should be close to 540 and 750. > > If that test passes, then you should probably look at your printing > configuration. > Yes, they are 540 and 801 - so, I need to check my configurations files again. > > The -t option to lpr has pretty much nothing to do with the -t option to > man. The former specifies what lpr takes as input, while the latter > makes man call groff in a different way. The -t option to man isn't > obsolete. > Yes, you are right - I dont know what I was doing! Looking at 'man lpr' instead of 'man man' - I think I need to take a break!! :-) -- Regards,# Penguin Power for People! # Ridzwan Abdullah# Powered by GNU/Debian 3.0 # -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pre-release Woody 3.0: 'Man' & Gnome Terminal not working.
> Do change unstable to stabel but do a reinstall of stable not a > dist-upgrade (as it would be a disty-downgrade). Otherwise you will get > into a lot of problems. A dist-upgrade after changing 'unstable' to 'stable' in /etc/apt/sources.list told me that zero packages were to be upgraded ... as to a reinstall, as much as I'd like to after tinkering with it I feel I've learnt something new and gained a bit of confidence - if I can fix the print fn and procmail mboxes I should have a customised and functioning system - short of a major catastrophe. I still don't understand why Gnome terminal and 'man' pages are not working. Trying "man procmail" as root gives me - sh: line 1: /usr/bin/pager: No such file or directory sh: line 1: exec: /usr/bin/pager: cannot execute: : No such file or directory man: command exited with status 32256: /bin/gzip -dc /var/cache/man/procmail.1.gz | exec /usr/bin/pager -s -- What is "status 32256" ? Cheers, Adam. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pre-release Woody 3.0: 'Man' & Gnome Terminal not working.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 01:05:56PM +1000, Adam Bogacki wrote: > I still don't understand why Gnome terminal and 'man' pages > are not working. Trying "man procmail" as root gives me > > - > sh: line 1: /usr/bin/pager: No such file or directory > sh: line 1: exec: /usr/bin/pager: cannot execute: : No such file or > directory > man: command exited with status 32256: /bin/gzip -dc > /var/cache/man/procmail.1.gz | exec /usr/bin/pager -s Something's deleted your /usr/bin/pager. Normally it's a symlink to /etc/alternatives/pager, which is a symlink to whatever the preferred pager on your machine is. Run 'update-alternatives --config pager' to restore it. > What is "status 32256" ? It happens to indicate that the program 'man' was trying to run exited with return code 126 and didn't receive any fatal signal, but the exact number is not important here. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pre-release Woody 3.0: 'Man' & Gnome Terminal not working.
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 04:55, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 01:05:56PM +1000, Adam Bogacki wrote: > > I still don't understand why Gnome terminal and 'man' pages > > are not working. Trying "man procmail" as root gives me > > > > - > > sh: line 1: /usr/bin/pager: No such file or directory > > sh: line 1: exec: /usr/bin/pager: cannot execute: : No such file or > > directory > > man: command exited with status 32256: /bin/gzip -dc > > /var/cache/man/procmail.1.gz | exec /usr/bin/pager -s > > Something's deleted your /usr/bin/pager. Normally it's a symlink to > /etc/alternatives/pager, which is a symlink to whatever the preferred > pager on your machine is. Run 'update-alternatives --config pager' to > restore it. > > > What is "status 32256" ? > > It happens to indicate that the program 'man' was trying to run exited > with return code 126 and didn't receive any fatal signal, but the exact > number is not important here. > > -- > Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > It's been missing on my system, too, since about when man-db last moved into testing (not saying it was man-db that did this, just that the time was the same.) That said, I just went with the older solution of defining the PAGER environment variable and exporting it in my shell .rc, which was the way I'd been raised to do this. I've declined to file a bug report on this because I want to be sure it goes to the right package (Maintainers are busy enough - if I can essentially track the problem down to a specific patch, hopefully that will save headaches all around.) This solution above may leave a tad of confusion - the symlink needs to be restored to /etc/alternatives/pager for /usr/bin/pager, or you can update-alternatives till the cows come home and still get no pager. -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pre-release Woody 3.0: 'Man' & Gnome Terminal not working.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 08:52:45AM -0400, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > It's been missing on my system, too, since about when man-db last moved > into testing (not saying it was man-db that did this, just that the time > was the same.) That said, I just went with the older solution of > defining the PAGER environment variable and exporting it in my shell > .rc, which was the way I'd been raised to do this. I've declined to file > a bug report on this because I want to be sure it goes to the right > package (Maintainers are busy enough - if I can essentially track the > problem down to a specific patch, hopefully that will save headaches all > around.) Can I guess that you have sawfish-pager installed? It used to clobber /usr/bin/pager, although it's been fixed now. > This solution above may leave a tad of confusion - the symlink needs to > be restored to /etc/alternatives/pager for /usr/bin/pager, or you can > update-alternatives till the cows come home and still get no pager. Mea culpa. My tests weren't complete enough: update-alternatives seems to restore the symlink if only one possible alternative is present, but not otherwise. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pre-release Woody 3.0: 'Man' & Gnome Terminal not working.
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 08:59, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 08:52:45AM -0400, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > It's been missing on my system, too, since about when man-db last moved > > into testing (not saying it was man-db that did this, just that the time > > was the same.) That said, I just went with the older solution of > > defining the PAGER environment variable and exporting it in my shell > > .rc, which was the way I'd been raised to do this. I've declined to file > > a bug report on this because I want to be sure it goes to the right > > package (Maintainers are busy enough - if I can essentially track the > > problem down to a specific patch, hopefully that will save headaches all > > around.) > > Can I guess that you have sawfish-pager installed? It used to clobber > /usr/bin/pager, although it's been fixed now. > Good call - I did that the same day, probably within ten minutes, and ran it for 24 hours at most, before removing it as redundant (a multi-desktop pager that isn't automatically sticky?) Is there a central repository of what files have been created by packages on the Debian managed part of the filesystem? I just ran into the same problem a couple weeks ago over /usr/bin/blackhole, used by the blackhole- packages, but also still around in the old xjokes package (now moved to /usr/games after a bug report I filed.) Which also surprises me - I thought I should have had an "attempt to overwrite file belonging to another package" with sawfish-pager - I didn't see anything. Does dpkg wave off that message when it is looking at symlinks? > > This solution above may leave a tad of confusion - the symlink needs to > > be restored to /etc/alternatives/pager for /usr/bin/pager, or you can > > update-alternatives till the cows come home and still get no pager. > > Mea culpa. My tests weren't complete enough: update-alternatives seems > to restore the symlink if only one possible alternative is present, but > not otherwise. > > -- > Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pre-release Woody 3.0: 'Man' & Gnome Terminal not working.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 12:31:42PM -0400, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > Is there a central repository of what files have been created by > packages on the Debian managed part of the filesystem? I just ran into > the same problem a couple weeks ago over /usr/bin/blackhole, used by the > blackhole- packages, but also still around in the old xjokes > package (now moved to /usr/games after a bug report I filed.) Everything actually included in the filesystem archive of a .deb is in /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list. Files created by packages' maintainer scripts aren't registered (although support for that is apparently planned for a future version of dpkg). > Which also surprises me - I thought I should have had an "attempt to > overwrite file belonging to another package" with sawfish-pager - I > didn't see anything. Does dpkg wave off that message when it is looking > at symlinks? No, but it only generates the message if the file it's attempting to overwrite was actually part of another package (so in /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list). /usr/bin/pager is just created by update-alternatives, so isn't recorded. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pre-release Woody 3.0: 'Man' & Gnome Terminal not working.
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 12:36, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 12:31:42PM -0400, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > Is there a central repository of what files have been created by > > packages on the Debian managed part of the filesystem? I just ran into > > the same problem a couple weeks ago over /usr/bin/blackhole, used by the > > blackhole- packages, but also still around in the old xjokes > > package (now moved to /usr/games after a bug report I filed.) > > Everything actually included in the filesystem archive of a .deb is in > /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list. Files created by packages' maintainer scripts > aren't registered (although support for that is apparently planned for a > future version of dpkg). > > > Which also surprises me - I thought I should have had an "attempt to > > overwrite file belonging to another package" with sawfish-pager - I > > didn't see anything. Does dpkg wave off that message when it is looking > > at symlinks? > > No, but it only generates the message if the file it's attempting to > overwrite was actually part of another package (so in > /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list). /usr/bin/pager is just created by > update-alternatives, so isn't recorded. > > Cheers, > > -- > Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Pity - with the number of packages on the go now and an all volunteer team dealing with applications usually generated *elsewhere*, it is almost certain to have collisions in some filenames, particularly non-core names (people tend to remember names like "gcc", "vi" or "emacs".) -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pre-release Woody 3.0: 'Man' & Gnome Terminal not working.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 12:45:51PM -0400, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > Pity - with the number of packages on the go now and an all volunteer > team dealing with applications usually generated *elsewhere*, it is > almost certain to have collisions in some filenames, particularly > non-core names (people tend to remember names like "gcc", "vi" or > "emacs".) Well, that's why most files go in the .debs themselves rather than being generated by maintainer scripts ... most of the latter at least tend to have the package name in their file names, so the problem isn't too severe. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
