Bug 82592 - man pages garbled
Summary: man pages garbled
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: man
Version: 7.1
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Eido Inoue
QA Contact: Ben Levenson
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2003-01-23 19:17 UTC by Michael Berganski
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:50 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-02-20 21:38:22 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael Berganski 2003-01-23 19:17:48 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.79C-SGI [en] (X11; U; IRIX 6.5 IP32)

Description of problem:
man-pages-1.35-5
man-1.5i2-0.7x.5
redhat 7.1

man  pages garbled
example:
if you have the original man page ls.1.gz  and also have a copy ls.1.gz.orig in
/usr/share/man/man1and try to run man ls
the manpage is garbled.
I notice this when I modified the man page and also kept the original.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.man  pages garbled
example:
if you have the original man page ls.1.gz  and also have a copy ls.1.gz.orig in
/usr/share/man/man1and try to run man ls
the manpage is garbled.
I notice this when I modified the man page and also kept the original.
3.
    

Actual Results:  man  pages garbled
example:
if you have the original man page ls.1.gz  and also have a copy ls.1.gz.orig in
/usr/share/man/man1and try to run man ls
the manpage is garbled.
I notice this when I modified the man page and also kept the original.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Eido Inoue 2003-02-06 20:43:30 UTC
looks like yet another groff formatting bug

Comment 2 Florian La Roche 2003-02-08 00:27:24 UTC
This must be a problem within man.

greetings,

Florian La Roche


Comment 3 Eido Inoue 2003-02-20 21:38:22 UTC
i don't think man expects to have non-man-use files in the /usr/share/man area
(often times the /usr/share area is mounted read-only, so this is a reasonable
assumption). You can workaround this problem by naming the backup file in such a
way that the left$ of each don't match.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.