Hi Branden, On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 07:49:17PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2025-05-02T16:59:58+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 09:19:48AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Your grog executable may be out of sync with the man page you're > > > reading. > > > > > > Compare `type grog` with `man -w grog`. > > > > Hmmmm. > > > > alx@devuan:~$ which grog > > /usr/local/bin/grog > > alx@devuan:~$ grog --version > > GNU grog (groff) 1.23.0.2695-49927 > > alx@devuan:~$ man grog | tail -n1 > > groff 1.23.0 26 December 2024 > > grog(1) > [...] > > Okay, this complicates things a bit. :) > > I'm betting `man -w grog` reports "/usr/share/man/man1/grog.1", possibly > with a ".gz" extension--in which case, mystery solved.
Yep, it's the system one. > In my shell startup files, I make sure to update $MANPATH any time I > update $PATH. I'm not sure why, but I don't have any pages for groff(1) under </usr/local>. It seems I only installed the binaries. It's not a matter of MANPATH not being set. In fact, I read the pages from the Linux man-pages installed into </usr/local> every day. :| Have a lovely day! Alex > > This is not a common piece of cargo that Unix newcomers acquire; > historically, I suppose a lot of man(1) implementations didn't support > $MANPATH, but man-db has for decades, and I see mandoc(1) does too. > > Setting it won't, as I understand it, help FreeBSD or macOS users; but > the former have already memorized everything worth knowing about their > systems, and the latter use only "intuitive" software that requires no > documentation. > > Regards, > Branden -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
