From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 19 17:41:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21FE37B401 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pop016.verizon.net (pop016pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.173]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C05B43FA3 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:41:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([141.149.47.46]) by pop016.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030720004111.GBVK3199.pop016.verizon.net@mac.com> for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:41:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3F19E525.7020509@mac.com> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:41:09 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <3F19C78A.7030008@mac.com> <20030719233535.GF77396@sunbay.com> <3F19D8D3.1040401@mac.com> <87vftyoy91.fsf@inf.enst.fr> In-Reply-To: <87vftyoy91.fsf@inf.enst.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at pop016.verizon.net from [141.149.47.46] at Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:41:11 -0500 Subject: Re: A patch to man to handle "man.1"... X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:41:14 -0000 Samuel Tardieu wrote: [ ... ] > It works only by chance. If ld-elf.so.1 was in section 2 for example, > your patch would prevent it from being found as the section is forced > to 1. Well, I don't want to discriminate against manpages named foo.1 in section 2, certainly. :-) On the other hand, I would argue that if the actual file is named /usr/share/man/man2/foo.1.2, having "man foo.1.2" work is not such a bad thing. I won't disagree if you claim that "man foo.1" should continue to work as before, however, even if it does seem ambiguous what should happen if there was also a "foo" manpage in section 1. -- -Chuck