On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 00:26 +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 25.01.2009, 23:59 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert: > > [..] > > Now you want me to revert the patch to fix #442782. But following the > > documentation, the patch is correct. Unfortunately it makes manual pages > > under Etch unreadable. That's a difficult situation. > > It seems, this wasn't completely true. I missed grap on the Etch system. > Installing it, made it possible to view the manual pages. man just threw > some warnings. > > In this case I'm in favour of closing this report, as the preprocessor > statement is correct and the manual pages can still be viewed.
I must say that I don't care that much either way and don't know enough about groff to have a meaningful opinion on this. Also, the relevant packages (for me) are not available on etch. I think that on etch the preprocessor information is handled differently. My manual page works with and without grap but because there is a g in coding man looks for grap. Isn't there a way to generate a manual page that is valid for both etch and lenny? If I remove the coding line from my manual page it works on both systems. Is that a bad idea? Thanks. -- -- arthur - adej...@debian.org - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
