[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Catman?

At 10:18 PM 4/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Does anyone define CATMAN when compiling?
>It isn't checked for in the old configure script and isn't mentioned in
>Mankefile.in.  It seems to look for man page in "/C/*_man/cat[0-9]/".
>I could understand looking in "/usr/man/cat[0-9]/" but /C/*_man/... seems
>rather unusual.  (Look in we_fl_unix.c if you want to look at it.)

>From "Unix Power Tools," by Peek, etc...

"An older organizational scheme is used by many System V systems.  It adds
another layer of structure to the BSD plan.  The directiories /usr/man and
/usr/catman both hae several subdirectories of the from x_man where x is a
code letter indicating the directory's contents: a for administrative, p
for programming, u for user commands (other codes are present on some
systems).  Under each of these directories there are several subdirectories
named manN and catN holding the actual man pages."

Other references point at Xenix...  Perhaps the /C/ refers to putting the C
man pages in a seperate place.  All in all, this seems to be an outdated
way of arranging man pages, probably put in for someone's unique system.  :)

>Unless anyone knows of a reason to keep this feature I'm going to remove

I hesitate to use the word feature.  Does anyone actually have a system
organized in this fashion, or have seen such?

(Dennis's roomate who gets to hear him talk about how much he hates this
program.  Hehehehehehehe.)
Kenn Flynn -- flynnk@rpi.edu -- http://www.rpi.edu/~flynnk