This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Shouldn't 'man' depend on 'col'? Shouldn't 'col' be easier to find?
- From: Marco Atzeri <marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 18:15:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: Shouldn't 'man' depend on 'col'? Shouldn't 'col' be easier to find?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJqfdW6bCQ4PLnSO2o6a1gd-veLogad9he9TcddZzk9sw8Jr-w at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 08/07/2014 17:47, Jack Duthen wrote:
Problem #1:
----------
After I loaded a few cygwin packages, I got this:
$ man bash | wc
man: can't execute col: No such file or directory
The "man" command works perfectly when the stdout is NOT redirected,
but, when sent to a pipe or a file, the command "man" fails with the
above message.
Question #1:
Shouldn't the 'man' function/package depend on the 'col' function/package?
Problem #2
----------
To solve my 'man' problem,I tried to find the 'col' command.
I launched the standard interface (setup.exe) and entered 'col' in the
'Search' text field.
It gave me a list of packages, mainly related to 'colamd', 'colorgc',
'protocol' stuff, 'colored' stuff, 'texlive-collection' stuff,
'colordiff'...
but no clear link to the missing 'col.exe'.
wrong way. Setup search only package names, not their content
Best with
https://cygwin.com/packages/
https://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=col.exe&arch=x86
also with
$ cygcheck -p col.exe
Found 4 matches for col.exe
netpbm-10.61.02-1 - Toolkit for manipulation of graphic images
netpbm-debuginfo-10.61.02-1 - Debug information for Toolkit for
manipulation of graphic images
util-linux-2.21.2-1 - Random collection of Linux utilities
util-linux-debuginfo-2.21.2-1 - Debug information for Random collection
of Linux utilities
of course "col" is too short to be meaningful, "col.exe"
is a better catch.
Question #3
To get a 'man' that works when piped, is there a better way than
loading this "random" collection of utilities?
Am I the only one to get that problem???
util-linux is a popular package, so the issue was not yet noticed.
man was recently changed, so this dependency was likely missed,
specially as it seems hidden inside the man binary.
)jack(
Marco
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple