GNU bug report logs - #5347
23.1; M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 5347-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 5347-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#5347: 23.1;
	M-x man: misreports absent man(1) as absent manpage.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:05:28 +0200

> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:05:39 +1100
> From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 5347 <at> 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.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.