RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Herb Martin wrote: > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Blake . Thanks. > man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to admit that "hash" > is exists, i.e., is a built-in. "type hash" should say that it's a built

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

Original Message >From: Herb Martin >Sent: 15 August 2005 16:03 >>> man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to admit that "hash" >>> is exists, i.e., is a built-in. >> >> Yes, bash documentation is not the best packaged (I like the >> Solaris man pages for shell builtins much b

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Blake > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:01 AM > To: Herb Martin; cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 > -- Apropos still troubl

Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 03:00:49PM +, Eric Blake wrote: > > There is a man directory in /usr/bin, i.e., /usr/bin/man -- > > with man.exe being the program, while manpath gives: > > This sentence was confusing. Are you telling me that > /usr/bin/man exists and is a directory (does it have norm

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> From: Eric Blake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Herb Martin; cygwin@cygwin.com > > man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to admit > that "hash" > > is exists, i.e., is a built-in. > > Yes, bash documentation is not the best packaged (I like the > Solaris man pages for shell bui

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> > man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to > admit that "hash" is exists, i.e., is a built-in. Yes, bash documentation is not the best packaged (I like the Solaris man pages for shell builtins much better). What `man hash' is trying to tell you to do is run `man bash', then search

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> There is a man directory in /usr/bin, i.e., /usr/bin/man -- > with man.exe being the program, while manpath gives: This sentence was confusing. Are you telling me that /usr/bin/man exists and is a directory (does it have normal subdirectories like man1?), and that /usr/bin/man.exe exists and is

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:11:09AM -0500, Herb Martin wrote: > > There is a man directory in /usr/bin, i.e., /usr/bin/man -- with > > man.exe being the program, while manpath gives: > > What created that directory? Having it is a really bad idea, > and probably the source of all your troubles

Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:11:09AM -0500, Herb Martin wrote: > There is a man directory in /usr/bin, i.e., /usr/bin/man -- > with man.exe being the program, while manpath gives: What created that directory? Having it is a really bad idea, and probably the source of all your troubles. -- Unsubscr

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Blake > According to Herb Martin on 8/14/2005 10:22 PM: > > > > cygwin (like Linux apparently) keeps a database of > > programs and so deleting an incorrect program > > on the path may leave the OS complaining about > >