File overwrite

Ken Moffat ken at
Tue Dec 14 08:44:40 PST 2004

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Matthias B. wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:34:11 +0000 (GMT) Ken Moffat
> <ken at> wrote:
> > ( we give
> > preference to man pages from the package, because they are more likely
> > to be up to date ).
> Which, btw, I think is the wrong decision. I have actually compared the
> conflicting manpages and I have yet to find one where the man-pages
> version was not superior. Especially the pseudo-manpages from the GNU
> packages are a joke.

 I'll take your word for it, but I'm not sure that all of them still fit
the "to find out anything useful please read the info pages" model.
Last time I looked (diffutils, 2 or 3 years ago) I sent patches to
add some of the commands as man-pages, derived from what it said in the
info files.  They accepted these, but fairly soon after they altered the
package to generate man pages using help2man.

> > >
> > > /usr/man/man1/{groups, su}.1
> > > shadow, coreutils
> > >
> >
> >  I can't remember which versions of these programs we run.  Might be ok,
> > I'm sure somebody knows.
> The last one at least is a bug in the LFS book. A standard LFS 6.0 build
> uses the coreutils version of the groups binary but takes the manpage from
> shadow. See section 7.3/shadow of the more_control_.. hint for details.

Anything that's definitely a bug in the book ought to be in bugzilla.

 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the lfs-support mailing list