From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 09 07:14:54 2010 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jan 2010 12:14:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTaDV-0006g2-VP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:54 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTaDT-0006fw-UI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:52 -0500 Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:33679) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTaDO-0003v7-TV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NTaDN-0004OB-Qz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:46 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on monty-python X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.1.0 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:50626) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NTaDN-0004Nu-J1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:45 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NTaDN-0007ef-2t for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:45 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NTaDI-0007e8-FZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:44 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44038 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NTaDI-0007e5-A3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:40 -0500 Received: from mail-yx0-f191.google.com ([209.85.210.191]:35588) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NTaDI-0004LE-0g for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:14:40 -0500 Received: by yxe29 with SMTP id 29so46393194yxe.14 for ; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:14:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject; bh=FyC2HZGbhI8/RMnwsrcIHowaSI1cMVuFRStXgLUtaio=; b=T9gB00wKZg7jIJyOExxOHXubfT30PqK/gBjDZVsyTw4Cx/rpHizQefljv7Tkav/dMK gJaawtygtcI6hfBW02Yxkm0XCXfP6tWXkmTeqgd/8Z2cAzVOUklGUEDb9CuOYA6JcQK5 Cs10DKBqmTC7OXateeixgabBe1Dj4Cf0qoIUE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject; b=v348sUex3UKmjvEK6V778vQ0rqOZxSPscgXJkU5xCwt47J6xEQLu1QsmBrdOh40yVI sdxsFqT1yXv0+sA8kVfnZLBoT3C2qRwNiFQpVsKcFTcbOtEAn3Qh/7h5tziwX0gdhS0b ViOf4MmznMExKLSaQ6rJBpglXJtYGoZxxogr0= Received: by 10.150.208.10 with SMTP id f10mr29185914ybg.55.1263039278853; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:14:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ppp118-209-224-215.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net [118.209.224.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 39sm9681822yxd.45.2010.01.09.04.14.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:14:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:14:38 -0800 (PST) From: trentbuck@gmail.com To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) On my system, man(1) is not present, but a manpage was. M-x man RET pastebinint RET claimed that the manPAGE was missing, when actually man(1) is what was missing. M-x woman RET pastebinint RET works. In GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) of 2009-11-02 on raven, modified by Debian configured using `configure '--build=i486-linux-gnu' '--host=i486-linux-gnu' '--prefix=/usr' '--sharedstatedir=/var/lib' '--libexecdir=/usr/lib' '--localstatedir=/var/lib' '--infodir=/usr/share/info' '--mandir=/usr/share/man' '--with-pop=yes' '--enable-locallisppath=/etc/emacs23:/etc/emacs:/usr/local/share/emacs/23.1/site-lisp:/usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp:/usr/share/emacs/23.1/site-lisp:/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp:/usr/share/emacs/23.1/leim' '--with-x=no' 'build_alias=i486-linux-gnu' 'host_alias=i486-linux-gnu' 'CFLAGS=-DDEBIAN -g -O2' 'LDFLAGS=-g' 'CPPFLAGS='' Important settings: value of $LC_ALL: nil value of $LC_COLLATE: C value of $LC_CTYPE: nil value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil value of $LC_MONETARY: nil value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil value of $LC_TIME: nil value of $LANG: en_AU.utf8 value of $XMODIFIERS: nil locale-coding-system: utf-8-unix default-enable-multibyte-characters: t Major mode: Fundamental Minor modes in effect: shell-dirtrack-mode: t rcirc-track-minor-mode: t xterm-mouse-mode: t savehist-mode: t icomplete-mode: t partial-completion-mode: t show-paren-mode: t delete-selection-mode: t file-name-shadow-mode: t global-font-lock-mode: t font-lock-mode: t global-auto-composition-mode: t auto-composition-mode: t auto-encryption-mode: t auto-compression-mode: t column-number-mode: t line-number-mode: t transient-mark-mode: t Recent input: SPC t o SPC d a r c s . c a b a l SPC t o SPC f i x SPC t h a t , DEL RET C-x ESC O A C-c C-@ a p t - g e t SPC s o u r c e SPC d o e s n ' t SPC n e e d SPC t o o SPC DEL DEL DEL DEL r o o t RET ESC a C-u C-c C-@ E a c h SPC v l a n SPC a p p e a r s SPC a s SPC a SPC s e p a r a t e SPC i n t e r f a c e ESC b ESC b ESC b ESC b ESC b ESC b ESC d t a g g e d SPC i n t e r f a c e RET ESC a C-x ESC O B I SPC g e t SPC t h e SPC s a m e SPC p r o b l e m SPC w i t h SPC H E A D , SPC c h e c k i n g SPC - h s SPC n o w RET ESC [ 5 ~ ESC > C-c C-@ ESC x m a n RET p a s t e b i n i t RET ESC x C-g ESC x w o m a n RET ESC O A RET C-x ESC O A ESC x m a n RET ESC O A RET C-h e C-@ ESC O A ESC O A ESC O A ESC w ESC > ESC x r e p o r t SPC e m a c s SPC b u g RET Recent messages: Building list of manual directory expansions... Building completion list of all manual topics... uncompressing pastebinit.1.gz...done WoMan formatting buffer...done in 0 seconds Invoking man pastebinit in the background Please wait: formatting the pastebinit man page... pastebinit man page formatted error in process sentinel: Man-bgproc-sentinel: Can't find the pastebinit manpage error in process sentinel: Can't find the pastebinit manpage Mark set [2 times] From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 09 09:02:15 2010 Received: (at 5347-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jan 2010 14:02:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTbtN-00089U-LX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:02:15 -0500 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTbtL-00089P-Do for 5347-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:02:11 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KVZ00I00G55J300@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 5347-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:01:50 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.222.44]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KVZ009WWGB19ZM1@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:01:50 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:02:24 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. In-reply-to: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: trentbuck@gmail.com, 5347-done@debbugs.gnu.org Message-id: <83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 5347-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) > Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:14:38 -0800 (PST) > From: trentbuck@gmail.com > Cc: > > On my system, man(1) is not present, but a manpage was. M-x man RET > pastebinint RET claimed that the manPAGE was missing, when actually > man(1) is what was missing. M-x woman RET pastebinint RET works. "M-x man" works by invoking man(1), so it cannot work without one installed. "M-x woman" (WO == without) does not need man(1), therefore it still works. So this is expected. If you don't have man(1) installed, you should use WoMan to begin with. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 09 22:05:53 2010 Received: (at 5347) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2010 03:05:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTo7k-0004V1-Ab for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:05:52 -0500 Received: from mail-gx0-f221.google.com ([209.85.217.221]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTo7i-0004Ut-D3; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:05:51 -0500 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so2106630gxk.19 for ; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:05:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=IzMo25ToFNnWMZ/os8QUxKncqJhlNNuRGCy0AMIi2M8=; b=Yl6W1bHKZ+HaJh7yeG4/gAq5pwVNMm3ew/rD0XmFogcwOb2R9yyNgTMlEXRwhBBzpF 9ba8+F/+FIuAiQZ1BZeIs0Gj64Q3AmIzJY7axjwUB7TNbnvuqiHBBrJPliAW4E9cdO6Y i350BLWaw6GQDnG8gX+6AvntQ6HFrXFv+VmLQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=ffrwNY2TbnGUpqh8+9kWSd17p86A7kU8BtYUFf8QXV9PpEQj1waixSVldnLY6HfHuP lwV2mzWXutyqCxXiqwQZ7DGvBopZ41V98zoMMjTkq2LiZ/9dmG1pNOF8oEFrS8Wcd/cA w49mFFjqbO28A/IPkfYRYF84TraSYUbXx+qk8= Received: by 10.151.95.3 with SMTP id x3mr8946888ybl.6.1263092746403; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ppp118-209-224-215.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net [118.209.224.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm9892314yxd.52.2010.01.09.19.05.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:05:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:05:39 +1100 From: "Trent W. Buck" To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. Message-ID: <20100110030538.GB2083@Clio> References: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> <83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 5347 Cc: 5347@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.7 (---) reopen 5347 thanks Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> On my system, man(1) is not present, but a manpage was. M-x man >> RET pastebinint RET claimed that the manPAGE was missing, when >> actually man(1) is what was missing. M-x woman RET pastebinint RET >> works. > > "M-x man" works by invoking man(1), so it cannot work without one > installed. "M-x woman" (WO == without) does not need man(1), > therefore it still works. I realize that. This issue is because M-x man RET foo RET reports error in process sentinel: Can't find the foo manpage but it should report something like error in process sentinel: Can't find man(1) From unknown Wed Jun 18 23:04:00 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: Did not alter fixed versions and reopened. Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:06:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # A New Hope # A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away # something happened. # # Magically this resulted in the following # action being taken, but this fake control # message doesn't tell you why it happened # # The action: # Did not alter fixed versions and reopened. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 09 23:05:03 2010 Received: (at 5347-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2010 04:05:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTp31-0005U4-Db for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:05:03 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTp2z-0005Tj-Ph for 5347-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:05:02 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KW000400J36WJ00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 5347-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:04:57 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.222.44]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KW000478JC5WH40@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:04:54 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:05:28 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. In-reply-to: <20100110030538.GB2083@Clio> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: "Trent W. Buck" Message-id: <83pr5i8v07.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> <83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110030538.GB2083@Clio> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 5347-done Cc: 5347-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) > Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:05:39 +1100 > From: "Trent W. Buck" > Cc: 5347@debbugs.gnu.org > > reopen 5347 > thanks > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> On my system, man(1) is not present, but a manpage was. M-x man > >> RET pastebinint RET claimed that the manPAGE was missing, when > >> actually man(1) is what was missing. M-x woman RET pastebinint RET > >> works. > > > > "M-x man" works by invoking man(1), so it cannot work without one > > installed. "M-x woman" (WO == without) does not need man(1), > > therefore it still works. > > I realize that. This issue is because M-x man RET foo RET reports > > error in process sentinel: Can't find the foo manpage > > but it should report something like > > error in process sentinel: Can't find man(1) It cannot know. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 09 23:30:52 2010 Received: (at 5347) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2010 04:30:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTpRz-0005g4-NY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:30:51 -0500 Received: from mail-gx0-f221.google.com ([209.85.217.221]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NTpRw-0005fr-L3 for 5347@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:30:50 -0500 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so2133043gxk.19 for <5347@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Rz+mdPDr2GHb2Lb8ZHmAeNoo/lcJ2UvBSJRQxNn3Rxk=; b=kgqh3aULSX36yu3hf/tbEUT8dxpbsw6bDBrh5QhWqnyjGQh48VOJpLrww05TCMsQB6 1Q/8yxKZsR5oWtR8cEeKo1aJZAUk6y8gPisjzxk+YDDQv6Pl6Sk96X5irnUnvjYDuiyH DOdMhZ5SCFuvMby89nXRaAXpkx+0M6Xs3MqN4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=MWK9CRok8fsKcYuC6k7Ribh4237yEt2tE/gOtRpP8fWN2nYofr9fKnnFCyGYpKLL7U TrDr/BAr3vlzI1wNgm3gcKreiBZeDurddFNmaBxr3I+mZy+rUbI5oRErbZxSaxdCB1zC VZZ4dxKpIbiBv0GFAzklHsLniTlS5jnX3pt/A= Received: by 10.100.36.14 with SMTP id j14mr12909790anj.2.1263097844957; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ppp118-209-224-215.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net [118.209.224.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm9966987yxd.53.2010.01.09.20.30.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:30:38 +1100 From: "Trent W. Buck" To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. Message-ID: <20100110043036.GA3424@Clio> References: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> <83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110030538.GB2083@Clio> <83pr5i8v07.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83pr5i8v07.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 5347 Cc: 5347@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> I realize that. This issue is because M-x man RET foo RET reports >> error in process sentinel: Can't find the foo manpage >> but it should report something like >> error in process sentinel: Can't find man(1) > > It cannot know. I don't understand why. Surely it can (executable-find "man") or even simply check the exit status (which will be 126 or 127 if man isn't executable). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 10 12:48:50 2010 Received: (at 5347) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2010 17:48:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NU1u1-0006ea-Ue for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:48:50 -0500 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NU1tz-0006eS-HO for 5347@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:48:36 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KW100700LEFNV00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 5347@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:47:59 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.222.44]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KW1005XMLFYJ160@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:47:59 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:48:34 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. In-reply-to: <20100110043036.GA3424@Clio> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: "Trent W. Buck" Message-id: <83ocl197gt.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> <83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110030538.GB2083@Clio> <83pr5i8v07.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110043036.GA3424@Clio> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 5347 Cc: 5347@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) > Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:30:38 +1100 > From: "Trent W. Buck" > Cc: 5347@debbugs.gnu.org > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> I realize that. This issue is because M-x man RET foo RET reports > >> error in process sentinel: Can't find the foo manpage > >> but it should report something like > >> error in process sentinel: Can't find man(1) > > > > It cannot know. > > I don't understand why. Surely it can (executable-find "man") or even > simply check the exit status (which will be 126 or 127 if man isn't > executable). But "M-x man" does not just run man(1), it runs a whole pipeline of different commands, including Sed and Awk. And that's just by default; some parts of the pipeline can be customized to invoke other commands. Testing each one of them via executable-find would be impractical. Testing for exit status of 127 or 126 is system-dependent, so it won't work on all systems. And since "M-x man" invokes the pipeline asynchronously, all it sees is an empty buffer or buffer with contents it doesn't expect. Why is the use-case of having man pages but not man(1) so important that it's worth catering to? Maybe it would be good enough to change (error "Can't find the %s manpage" args) into (error "Can't find the %s manpage or no man(1)" args) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 10 18:59:44 2010 Received: (at 5347) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2010 23:59:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NU7hA-00034O-Ap for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:59:44 -0500 Received: from mail-yw0-f203.google.com ([209.85.211.203]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NU7h7-00034B-Qt for 5347@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:59:42 -0500 Received: by ywh41 with SMTP id 41so36213293ywh.0 for <5347@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:59:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=9rRVJfO6M84q6ULvIOTBPNm2L7Bi06I9oBcuestfzcM=; b=ZFTyXmvPPlxFzadEACvATGCQuXjoELjHOeeqpkJBM6XgruANSAKeFdmHdHVNB2yhO1 YtxdQV3AtqJFq/XRod46u1RD+ehM6bZaV/KlaABRIAosFUGTPyQESYHbm2/nL+LCoIwp ULDucsXwQxDJmFZ8uxTaYzq4fZONU4l5WOo2U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=pQ6Zy4Snsg1lW7HT0o0RqFMRmbfIzQkV7qlGJoJgJV9Aa/Ltctk3eF2OVpvmjDvsdB eVWs/8dtgZMYAwcNlMjOInqXyVYiBa7rETMmOoK+a14M29AQL/EMutqUSw0WuamYoRrj yT66oS2SCr/quLW1VjATW4UsK+UAqz+zqmvxc= Received: by 10.150.10.2 with SMTP id 2mr804135ybj.252.1263167977640; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:59:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (nat064.cyber.com.au [203.7.155.64]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm8753428ywh.48.2010.01.10.15.59.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:59:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:59:31 +1100 From: "Trent W. Buck" To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. Message-ID: <20100110235929.GA1956@Clio> References: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> <83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110030538.GB2083@Clio> <83pr5i8v07.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110043036.GA3424@Clio> <83ocl197gt.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83ocl197gt.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 5347 Cc: 5347@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Why is the use-case of having man pages but not man(1) so important > that it's worth catering to? I was merely being pedantic re "cannot know" versus "not worth the effort". The original case arose because I forgot what system I was on and ran man instead of woman, and the error briefly confused me. A peonland solution would simply be to put in my .emacs: (unless (executable-find "man") (defalias 'man 'woman)) > Maybe it would be good enough to change > > (error "Can't find the %s manpage" args) > into > (error "Can't find the %s manpage or no man(1)" args) Yup, that'd be fine. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 10 20:55:45 2010 Received: (at 5347) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jan 2010 01:55:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NU9VR-0004OJ-Dn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:55:45 -0500 Received: from smtp-out4.starman.ee ([85.253.0.6] helo=mx2.starman.ee) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NU9VO-0004OE-PP for 5347@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:55:43 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by Amavisd-New at mx2.starman.ee Received: from mail.starman.ee (82.131.31.199.cable.starman.ee [82.131.31.199]) by mx2.starman.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE1B3F414B; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:55:33 +0200 (EET) From: Juri Linkov To: "Trent W. Buck" Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. Organization: JURTA References: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com> <83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110030538.GB2083@Clio> <83pr5i8v07.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110043036.GA3424@Clio> <83ocl197gt.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110235929.GA1956@Clio> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:52:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20100110235929.GA1956@Clio> (Trent W. Buck's message of "Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:59:31 +1100") Message-ID: <877hrpfmdt.fsf@mail.jurta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 5347 Cc: 5347@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) >> Maybe it would be good enough to change >> >> (error "Can't find the %s manpage" args) >> into >> (error "Can't find the %s manpage or no man(1)" args) > > Yup, that'd be fine. No, please don't change this. A new error message is confusing. It's not clear what "no man(1)" does mean. The current message is good for normal cases when the man executable and its filters are present on the system. Please either try to detect the fact that the man executable is missing and display a separate error message, or leave the current message unchanged. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 11 00:35:04 2010 Received: (at 5347) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jan 2010 05:35:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NUCvg-0006nU-65 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:35:04 -0500 Received: from acsinet11.oracle.com ([141.146.126.233]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NUCvf-0006n9-7K for 5347@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:35:03 -0500 Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by acsinet11.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o0B5YtpT001669 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:34:57 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o0B587as019082; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:34:54 GMT Received: from abhmt005.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1310317571263188079; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:34:39 -0800 Received: from dradamslap1 (/24.5.185.59) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:34:39 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Juri Linkov'" , <5347@debbugs.gnu.org>, "'Trent W. Buck'" References: <4b48732e.e701be0a.4cf2.3e5c@mx.google.com><83skaf8jgv.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110030538.GB2083@Clio><83pr5i8v07.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110043036.GA3424@Clio><83ocl197gt.fsf@gnu.org> <20100110235929.GA1956@Clio> <877hrpfmdt.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Subject: RE: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage. Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:34:51 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <877hrpfmdt.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Thread-Index: AcqSZIgGKdTJFwdbQ467vNrmwUHNDwAGybng X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4B4AB87F.010E:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 5347 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) > >> Maybe it would be good enough to change > >> > >> (error "Can't find the %s manpage" args) > >> into > >> (error "Can't find the %s manpage or no man(1)" args) > > > > Yup, that'd be fine. > > No, please don't change this. A new error message is confusing. > It's not clear what "no man(1)" does mean. The current > message is good > for normal cases when the man executable and its filters are present > on the system. Please either try to detect the fact that the man > executable is missing and display a separate error message, or leave > the current message unchanged. FWIW, I agree with Juri. That is not the right fix (if a fix is needed) - that message is less clear than the original one. From unknown Wed Jun 18 23:04:00 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # A New Hope # A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away # something happened. # # Magically this resulted in the following # action being taken, but this fake control # message doesn't tell you why it happened # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator