Updating 'man'
 

Hey guys, I tried contacting Andy directly but got no response, so I
am going to run this by everyone else.

I want to update the man package with a couple of changes:

Remove -Tlatin from the nroff call, as nroff will autodetect the
proper charset (this will help in displaying utf8 man pages), closing
7477 hopefully.
Run configure with +fhs so that it thinks man pages are in
/usr/share/man *first*

Is this acceptable?

Thanks,
Aaron

Updating 'man'
 

Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2008 22:11:37 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> Remove -Tlatin from the nroff call, as nroff will autodetect the
> proper charset (this will help in displaying utf8 man pages), closing
> 7477 hopefully.

Afaik this is no solution. In fact man pages are even more broken then. :-)

--
archlinux.de

Updating 'man'
 

On Jan 11, 2008 3:24 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2008 22:11:37 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> > Remove -Tlatin from the nroff call, as nroff will autodetect the
> > proper charset (this will help in displaying utf8 man pages), closing
> > 7477 hopefully.
>
> Afaik this is no solution. In fact man pages are even more broken then. :-)

It fixes *some* here. For instance, take a look at the pacman 3.1 man
page. A few of the quote characters are in utf8, and show up as (?) or
something until you remove the -Tlatin1.

Either way, removing that should be the proper way to go here.
Replacing man with man-db is probably more proper, but I am simply
working with what we have at this moment, as I don't have enough gusto
to do the complete replacement.

Updating 'man'
 

On Jan 11, 2008 3:30 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 3:24 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2008 22:11:37 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> > > Remove -Tlatin from the nroff call, as nroff will autodetect the
> > > proper charset (this will help in displaying utf8 man pages), closing
> > > 7477 hopefully.
> >
> > Afaik this is no solution. In fact man pages are even more broken then. :-)
>
> It fixes *some* here. For instance, take a look at the pacman 3.1 man
> page. A few of the quote characters are in utf8, and show up as (?) or
> something until you remove the -Tlatin1.
>
> Either way, removing that should be the proper way to go here.
> Replacing man with man-db is probably more proper, but I am simply
> working with what we have at this moment, as I don't have enough gusto
> to do the complete replacement.

Whoops, hit "send" too soon.

Could you please explain what "more broken" means. At the very least,
a few of us (eliott, dan, and myself) removed this line a few days ago
and I have heard no report of issues. This may be that we're all en_US
people, but it may not. You also need to unset LESSCHARSET for the
full effect, but this may not be done if you have the old /etc/profile
due the the pacman 3.0 backup issue

Updating 'man'
 

Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2008 22:30:13 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> On Jan 11, 2008 3:24 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2008 22:11:37 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> > > Remove -Tlatin from the nroff call, as nroff will autodetect the
> > > proper charset (this will help in displaying utf8 man pages), closing
> > > 7477 hopefully.
> >
> > Afaik this is no solution. In fact man pages are even more broken then.
> > :-)
>
> It fixes *some* here. For instance, take a look at the pacman 3.1 man
> page. A few of the quote characters are in utf8, and show up as (?) or
> something until you remove the -Tlatin1.

When I remove -Tlatin1 I got the following result:
http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre/tmp/man.png

Yes, even english man pages are broken now. With -Tlatin1 only those which are
localized are broken.

>
> Either way, removing that should be the proper way to go here.
> Replacing man with man-db is probably more proper, but I am simply
> working with what we have at this moment, as I don't have enough gusto
> to do the complete replacement.

I did not test man-db so far. (The package in [community] does not work)

--
archlinux.de

Updating 'man'
 

Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2008 22:32:28 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> You also need to unset LESSCHARSET for the
> full effect, but this may not be done if you have the old /etc/profile
> due the the pacman 3.0 backup issue

Ah, good hint. With unsetting LESSCHARSET everything seems fine. OK, when we
release a new filesystem without LESSCHARSET I am fine with this change. :-)

--
archlinux.de

Updating 'man'
 

On Jan 11, 2008 3:39 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2008 22:32:28 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> > You also need to unset LESSCHARSET for the
> > full effect, but this may not be done if you have the old /etc/profile
> > due the the pacman 3.0 backup issue
>
> Ah, good hint. With unsetting LESSCHARSET everything seems fine. OK, when we
> release a new filesystem without LESSCHARSET I am fine with this change. :-)

Yeah, I have other things for filesystem too. 8) I was going to push a
new filesystem and bash last night, but I didn't get a chance. I have
filesystem, bash, initscripts, and man updates coming down the
pipeline 8)

Updating 'man'
 

Also of note: pacman 3.1 doesn't appear to overwrite the /etc/profile
file, even if you don't change it, because the package changed hands
(profile != profile.bash).

When I enabled testing, fetched pacman 3.1, and then updated, I got a
profile.pacnew. Moving that over to replace the existing file and
logout-login fixed all the man pages that I had chance to look at.
pacman, git, and a few others.

Updating 'man'
 

eliott wrote:

Also of note: pacman 3.1 doesn't appear to overwrite the /etc/profile
file, even if you don't change it, because the package changed hands
(profile != profile.bash).

When I enabled testing, fetched pacman 3.1, and then updated, I got a
profile.pacnew. Moving that over to replace the existing file and
logout-login fixed all the man pages that I had chance to look at.
pacman, git, and a few others.




Ah indeed, when pacman installs the new filesystem package, it doesn't
have the original md5sum of /etc/profile, because that one is only
available in the old bash package, and not in the old filesystem package.


So instead if being in the following case :

original=X, current=X, new=Y
The current file is the same as the original but the new one
differs. Since the user did not ever modify the file, and
the new one may contain improvements or bugfixes, install
the new file.

original is actually empty, so we end up in the last case:

original=X, current=Y, new=Z
All three files are different, so install the new file with a
.pacnew extension and warn the user. The user must then manually
merge any necessary changes into the original file.

But in my opinion, that behavior is good enough.

Updating 'man'
 

On Jan 12, 2008 3:58 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> eliott wrote:
> > Also of note: pacman 3.1 doesn't appear to overwrite the /etc/profile
> > file, even if you don't change it, because the package changed hands
> > (profile != profile.bash).
> >
> > When I enabled testing, fetched pacman 3.1, and then updated, I got a
> > profile.pacnew. Moving that over to replace the existing file and
> > logout-login fixed all the man pages that I had chance to look at.
> > pacman, git, and a few others.
> >
>
>
> Ah indeed, when pacman installs the new filesystem package, it doesn't
> have the original md5sum of /etc/profile, because that one is only
> available in the old bash package, and not in the old filesystem package.

Good catch. I can bump the md5sum but fiddling with the file, if
people think that is ideal?