Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage.

From: "Trent W. Buck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:05:39 +1100

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)