Ivan Rajkovic <ivanrajkovic@gmail.com> wrote:
> -l use a long listing format
>
> the package that provides this man page is:
> /var/log/packages/coreutils-5.97-i486-1:usr/man/man1/ls.1.gz
>
> do you know why do i get different man page?

Essentially Slackware has two different versions of the man page
for ls, the one from coreutils itself (which will have the version
OF that coreutils at the bottom:
ls 5.97 (in 11.0)
and (at least up till 10.2) another (older) one in the man-pages
package. I see that Pat has removed the duplicates between those two in
11.0 (the one in man-pages was from the "GNU fileutils 4.0" package).
It was more more extensive, but didn't contain the newer options, of course.

Other versions of Linux may use still other versions of this man page.
>
> --
> i.

--
************************************************** ******************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/TW **
** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@math.tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
************************************************** ******************

Chris Sorenson wrote:
> Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
>> ...I find "info" pages annoying not only because
>> the interface to them is far from intuitive...
>>
>
> You are correct, running info in a term window is nightmarish!
>
> But the tkinfo program solves all that. I've been running version
> 2.5 for years, but I think they're up to 3.5 or thereabouts by now.

And for term windows and VC's there is pinfo.

From http://freshmeat.net/projects/pinfo/:
about:
Pinfo is a hypertext info file viewer with a user interface similar to
lynx. It is based on curses/ncurses, and can handle info pages as well
as man pages. It also features regexp searching and user-defined
colors/keys.

Regards,

Kees.

--
Kees Theunissen.

Handover Phist wrote:
> Yeah, configuration demands it. My client has a whole whack of domains
> and communicates with his account through Samba. This necessarily means
> that pretty much everything is 644 perms (damn MS for not making an NFS
> client).

MS does provide a NFS client. It's bundled with Windows Services for
UNIX package.

Overview:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/int...u/default.mspx

Download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en


Hope this helps.

jscott

On 2007-02-17, jscott <jscott@nospam.krudco.com> wrote:
> Handover Phist wrote:
>> Yeah, configuration demands it. My client has a whole whack of domains
>> and communicates with his account through Samba. This necessarily means
>> that pretty much everything is 644 perms (damn MS for not making an NFS
>> client).
>
> MS does provide a NFS client. It's bundled with Windows Services for
> UNIX package.
>
> Overview:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/int...u/default.mspx
>
> Download:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> jscott

Gotta admit that looks interesting and possibly very useful. Do you work
with this software? How does Windows handle unix GID/UID/Perms?

--
This signature intentionally left blank

http://www.websterscafe.com

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:22:57 GMT, Handover Phist <jason@NOSPAMwebsterscafe.com> wrote:

>On 2007-02-17, jscott <jscott@nospam.krudco.com> wrote:
>> Handover Phist wrote:
>>> Yeah, configuration demands it. My client has a whole whack of domains
>>> and communicates with his account through Samba. This necessarily means
>>> that pretty much everything is 644 perms (damn MS for not making an NFS
>>> client).
>>
>> MS does provide a NFS client. It's bundled with Windows Services for
>> UNIX package.
>>
>> Overview:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/int...u/default.mspx
>>
>> Download:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
....
>Gotta admit that looks interesting and possibly very useful. Do you work
>with this software? How does Windows handle unix GID/UID/Perms?

200MB download, install and find one needs ACLs etc turned on for the
NFS perms, is crap, I thought, not worth the effort, I uninstalled,
unimpressed.

YMMV. I only need occasional access to 'doze partitions these days so
samba okay.

Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/

Handover Phist wrote:
> Gotta admit that looks interesting and possibly very useful. Do you work
> with this software? How does Windows handle unix GID/UID/Perms?


I've used it only occasionally. Once with a legacy application data
move to Linux, which I still maintain. For the most part, it's all
transparent once you've configured it properly. You can manipulate file
permission directly from Windows. G/UID mapping is handled by NIS or
from a /etc/passwd and /etc/group file directly -- your choice.

It's worth noting the majority of these components are included with
Windows Server 2003 R2 and Vista [Enterprise and Ultimate].

jscott

CBFalconer wrote:

> The system can generate man, info, ps, pdf, html, and text versions
> from a single source. It's not the fault of the info system, but
> the fault of the packager.

You might have missed earlier messages in the thread: the man pages are
present, but man pages from older versions of the package are more
complete, while those from the newer version point the reader to the
info page for additional details. I doubt that's a change made by the
packager.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>
>> The system can generate man, info, ps, pdf, html, and text versions
>> from a single source. It's not the fault of the info system, but
>> the fault of the packager.
>
> You might have missed earlier messages in the thread: the man pages
> are present, but man pages from older versions of the package are
> more complete, while those from the newer version point the reader
> to the info page for additional details. I doubt that's a change
> made by the packager.

It's the packagers fault that he hasn't included the .info files,
or prepared the full man files if he doesn't want to include the
info system (which is foolish IMO).

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

Sylvain Robitaille <syl@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> You might have missed earlier messages in the thread: the man pages are
> present, but man pages from older versions of the package are more
> complete, while those from the newer version point the reader to the
> info page for additional details.

And often even the info page is the "more limited one" too,
THEY don't contain the full details either.
I've seen a lot of info pages that are essentially identical to the
man page (like they were generated from a common source), they are
missing the more extensive explanations too, that older (and other
Unix) man pages DID give.
--
************************************************** ******************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/TW **
** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@math.tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
************************************************** ******************

Eef Hartman wrote:
> Sylvain Robitaille <syl@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>> You might have missed earlier messages in the thread: the man
>> pages are present, but man pages from older versions of the
>> package are more complete, while those from the newer version
>> point the reader to the info page for additional details.
>
> And often even the info page is the "more limited one" too, THEY
> don't contain the full details either. I've seen a lot of info
> pages that are essentially identical to the man page (like they
> were generated from a common source), they are missing the more
> extensive explanations too, that older (and other Unix) man
> pages DID give.

That's because the info system defaults to displaying man pages
when it can't find an info file. The tipoff is the lack of
hyperlinks, menus, etc. If you look at the status line it will
also announce that it is using manpages.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews