On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 10:36:57PM +0100, Steve Keller wrote:
> On debian bullseye I have installed GCC but don't find any manual page.
> What am I missing?
>
You'll need to add 'contrib' and 'non-free' to your sources and then
install the gcc-doc package [0].
Regards,
-Roberto
[0] https://pack
On debian bullseye I have installed GCC but don't find any manual page.
What am I missing?
Steve
While I like the dhelp script idea, I think man is a pure UX issue -
man should generally DWIM because if I type "man foo", I don't want to
jump through hoops. There times (looking at libraries and system calls
and the like) that knowing the system helps. However, with >20 (IDR
how many - a bunch)
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> songbird wrote:
>> are you suggesting which be altered or the
>> manual page be amended to include more information
>> about what to do when which fails to report any
>> matching command?
>
> I'd rather see which(1) be more informative about built-ins.
there's a lot of
On Lu, 10 nov 14, 21:49:30, songbird wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote:
> >> zsh, however, is more helpful:
> >>
> >> $ which umask
> >> umask: shell built-in command
> >
> > Maybe a (wishlist) bug against debianutils is in order?
>
> is zsh providing a
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote:
>>=20
>> Iain M Conochie writes:
>>=20
>> > However:
>> >=20
>> > $: which umask
>> > $:
>> >=20
>> > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary
>> > called umask on the system)
>>=20
>> zsh, however, is more h
asked, and some of the
> questions they may have raised if you'd followed the guide on how to ask
> smart questions is:-
>
> Q. Why is there no man page for BASH built-ins?
I don't need to ask this because I know the answer. In fact, I explicitly
stated the answer in my
On 03/11/14 13:56, Alexis wrote:
>
> Iain M Conochie writes:
>
>> However:
>>
>> $: which umask
>> $:
>>
>> So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary
>> called umask on the system)
>
> zsh, however, is more helpful:
>
> $ which umask
> umask: shell built-in command
BAS
uestions they may have raised if you'd followed the guide on how to ask
smart questions is:-
Q. Why is there no man page for BASH built-ins?
A. Because they are built-ins. There documentation is internal to the
command (shell) - which has it's own man page, as per tradition
(separate the
Le 03.11.2014 04:30, Joe Pfeiffer a écrit :
Carl Fink writes:
When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the
man
page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it
seemed
to be for C header files and came from section 2.)
This is darn confusing for a
On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote:
>
> Iain M Conochie writes:
>
> > However:
> >
> > $: which umask
> > $:
> >
> > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary
> > called umask on the system)
>
> zsh, however, is more helpful:
>
> $ which umask
> umask: shell buil
Karl E. Jorgensen writes:
> Well, it *appears* that zsh is more helpful. But only because the
> "which" command itself is a built-in for zsh :-) (it isn't for bash)
>
> So you have the opposite problem: "man which" gives you the wrong
> manual page :-) (but presumably very similar)
Indeed you'
Hi
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:56:36PM +1100, Alexis wrote:
>
> Iain M Conochie writes:
>
> > However:
> >
> > $: which umask
> > $:
> >
> > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary
> > called umask on the system)
>
> zsh, however, is more helpful:
>
> $ which umask
>
Joe Pfeiffer writes:
> The underlying problem is that umask isn't a standalone command, it's a
> shell builtin. So if you look at the bash manpage you can find the
> (very terse) documention; of course, there's no hint anywhere that you
> should do that. Just as for (looking at some other built
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> [...]
> You might be able to find something out from 'man -d umask', and
> examining the resulting debugging output... it seems to indicate exactly
> what file it ends up using, and what path it takes in figuring out what
> file to use. Though
Carl Fink writes:
> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man
> page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed
> to be for C header files and came from section 2.)
>
> This is darn confusing for a new user. I have been around long enough
On 11/02/2014 at 09:44 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:26 AM, The Wanderer
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to be done, not by symlink, but in the man db.
>>
>> What leads you to that conclusion?
>>
>> AFAIK, if 'man xyz' brings up a man
Iain M Conochie writes:
> However:
>
> $: which umask
> $:
>
> So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary
> called umask on the system)
zsh, however, is more helpful:
$ which umask
umask: shell built-in command
Alexis.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ..
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:26 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Seems to be done, not by symlink, but in the man db.
>
> What leads you to that conclusion?
>
> AFAIK, if 'man xyz' brings up a man page from section 1, then there is
> an xyz.1 or xyz.
Perhaps apropos is your friend here?
:$ apropos umask
pam_umask (8)- PAM module to set the file mode creation mask
As I said in the original, I found it almost immediately.
However, doesn't the Debian policy manual require a man page for every
program?
Not being a DD or DM I cannot
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 03:51:25PM +, Iain M Conochie wrote:
>
> On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote:
> >On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >>Succinct!
> >>
> >>man pam_umask?
> >That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you
> >alias it to man umask
Joel Rees writes:
> I think there was an OS back way back when, that had a "learn"
> command. (As in, "I want to `learn' about .") Don't remember
> which, though. Or it might have been an app.
UNIX: http://itservices.usc.edu/unix/commands/learn/
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On 11/02/2014 at 10:51 AM, Iain M Conochie wrote:
> On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>> Succinct!
>>>
>>> man pam_umask?
>>
>> That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless
>> you alias it to man umask. You
On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote:
On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
Succinct!
man pam_umask?
That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you
alias it to man umask. You don't _type_ pam_umask.
Carl
Perhaps apropos is your friend here?
:$ apropos
On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:35 PM, The Wanderer
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>> Hmm. What do I get when I try to do a man umask?
>>>
>>> BASH_BUILTINS (1)
>>>
>>> I wonder why. I have a memory of doing something like ins
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:35 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>
>> 2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" :
>>
>>> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got
>>> the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C
>>> programmer, but it seemed t
On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" :
>
>> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got
>> the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C
>> programmer, but it seemed to be for C header files and came from
>> section 2.)
>>
>>
2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" :
>
> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man
> page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed
> to be for C header files and came from section 2.)
>
> This is darn confusing for a new user. I have been around
On 2014-11-02 04:06 +0100, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 at 10:18 PM, Carl Fink wrote:
>
>> Surely a symbolic link could be set up for umask as well as the
>> others (bg, eval, fg, read, etc.)?
>
> One could, but I don't think I'd say it would be a good idea, and
> although the Debian bash m
On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> Succinct!
>
> man pam_umask?
That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you
alias it to man umask. You don't _type_ pam_umask.
Carl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On 02/11/14 13:27, John Hasler wrote:
> An addition to the "See Also" section of the umask man page would
> suffice.
>
Succinct!
man pam_umask?
Kind regards
--
"Turns out you can't back a winner in the Gish Gallop" ~ disappointed punter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists
On 02/11/14 13:18, Carl Fink wrote:
> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man
> page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed
> to be for C header files and came from section 2.)
>
> This is darn confusing for a new user.
Agreed (also
On 11/01/2014 at 10:18 PM, Carl Fink wrote:
> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the
> man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but
> it seemed to be for C header files and came from section 2.)
>
> This is darn confusing for a new user. I hav
Dear Carl Fink,
my unpleasant experience so far is that our package maintainers are keener
on keeping their bug closing rate appear very fast in the statistical
competition than in understanding and catering to your visions of
user-friendlines. Unless you mind disappointments try that path also. Y
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 09:27:39PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> An addition to the "See Also" section of the umask man page would
> suffice.
It isn't a general solution, though. Commands like fg just don't have man
pages. The symlink idea actually served to help (and educate) the new user.
--
Carl
An addition to the "See Also" section of the umask man page would
suffice.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.d
When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man
page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed
to be for C header files and came from section 2.)
This is darn confusing for a new user. I have been around long enough
(slink) that I quickly realiz
Tony Baldwin wrote:
...
try
mandb -c
as root.
songbird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/70u5h9-aii@id-306963.user.uni-berlin.de
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:00:25AM -0400, Tony Baldwin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:56:17PM -0400, Tony Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:55:10PM -0400, Tony Baldwin wrote:
> > > My man pages have all disappeared...
> > >
> > > I did "man netstat" to look something up, and I go
but it was an empty page.
> >
> > I tried
> > man ls
> > man cd
> > man aptitude
> > etc., etc...
> >
> > same thing...no man pages...
> > I've never, ever, in over a decade of using gnu/linux, ever lost my man
> > pages. Man p
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:55:10PM -0400, Tony Baldwin wrote:
> My man pages have all disappeared...
>
> I did "man netstat" to look something up, and I got nothing...
> I mean, no error, but it was an empty page.
>
> I tried
> man ls
> man cd
> man aptitud
; >I tried
> >man ls
> >man cd
> >man aptitude
> >etc., etc...
> >
> >same thing...no man pages...
>
> If all else fails
> http://manpages.debian.net/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=
>
> Apologies - I'm an elderly Windoze user who predates Linus' p
Tony Baldwin wrote:
My man pages have all disappeared...
I did "man netstat" to look something up, and I got nothing...
I mean, no error, but it was an empty page.
I tried
man ls
man cd
man aptitude
etc., etc...
same thing...no man pages...
I've never, ever, in over a deca
My man pages have all disappeared...
I did "man netstat" to look something up, and I got nothing...
I mean, no error, but it was an empty page.
I tried
man ls
man cd
man aptitude
etc., etc...
same thing...no man pages...
I've never, ever, in over a decade of using gnu/linux, e
Thanks, man-db did it.
Have a good weekend all.
KM
- Original Message -
From: "Meir Kriheli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Why no man pages?
> On Friday 19 October 2001 22:50, Ken Mead wrote:
> > Hello:
> >
&
found"
>
> However, I do have directories in /usr/man/...?
>
> If I try to apt-get install manpages I get newest version in response. If I
> try to dpkg-reconfigure I get the prompt back but still no man pages.
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
> KM
apt-get install man-db
Des
On Friday, October 19, 2001 1:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When i run the man command I get this error back:
>
> "bash: man: command not found"
>
> However, I do have directories in /usr/man/...?
I had a Woody upgrade that silently removed man
support from my box. apt-get install man-db d
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 16:50:55 -0400, Ken Mead wrote:
> "bash: man: command not found"
apt-get install man-db
HTH,
Ray
--
RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may not be a better one than the one
the blocks live in but it'll be a sight more vivid.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C
On approximately Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 04:50:55PM -0400, Ken Mead wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I have yet to find a fix for this problem I am experiencing. I have a
> testing box without any man pages(command)!
>
> When i run the man command I get this error back:
>
> "bash: man: command not found"
>
> H
>I have yet to find a fix for this problem I am experiencing. I have a
>testing box without any man pages(command)!
>
>When i run the man command I get this error back:
>
>"bash: man: command not found"
Make sure you have man-db installed:
apt-get install man-db
--
Those who would give up essen
ages I get newest version in response. If I
try to dpkg-reconfigure I get the prompt back but still no man pages.
Thank you for your time,
KM
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 09:28:55AM -0600, Robert Guthrie wrote:
> Sometimes when I try to view a man page that doesn't exist (try man
> nomanpage, or man foo), I get these errors:
> man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz is a dangling symlink
> man: can't open /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1: No su
Sometimes when I try to view a man page that doesn't exist (try man
nomanpage, or man foo), I get these errors:
man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz is a dangling symlink
man: can't open /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1: No such file or directory
man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz: bad sym
n do. I have added a pointer to the
usersguide to the main README file to ensure that people notice it.
> I also was under the impression that EVERY package in debian
> has a man page (even that one that says "the program has no man page").
There is no program named "debconf&q
for
debconf to change the default dialog back to dialog (or text). The reason
I had a hard time was there is no man page for debconf. I also did not
find any help in doc/debconf except something that refered to
dpkg-preconfigure. Which made me think to use dpkg-reconfigure debconf
(this did work and
On Jul 4, Will Lowe wrote
> Ok. I upgraded from 1.2 -> 1.3 the other day. Got an error saying that
> "mandb" conflicted with "man", so I purged man and installed "mandb",
> thinking that the latter replaced the former. Now I've got no man.
Ok. I upgraded from 1.2 -> 1.3 the other day. Got an error saying that
"mandb" conflicted with "man", so I purged man and installed "mandb",
thinking that the latter replaced the former. Now I've got no man. Any
clues?
57 matches
Mail list logo
