File overwrite

Matthias B. msbREMOVE-THIS at winterdrache.de
Tue Dec 14 06:36:54 PST 2004


On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:34:11 +0000 (GMT) Ken Moffat
<ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net> 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.

> > /usr/man/man1/{chmod, chgrp, rm, mkdir, dir, du, ln, ls, install,
> > touch, mv, chown, rmdir, mknod, dircolors, mkfifo, vdir, dd, cp, df}.1
> > man-pages, coreutils
> >
> > /usr/man/man1/diff.1
> > man-pages, diffutils
> >
> > /usr/man/man3/getspnam.3.gz
> > man-pages, shadow
> >
> > /usr/man/man5/passwd.5
> > man-pages, shadow
> >
> > /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. 

> 
> > /usr/man/man5/{syslog, syslog.conf}.5
> > sysklogd, inetutils
> >
> 
>  Similar comment to groups and su man pages.

inetutils is configured with --disable-syslogd in LFS 6.0, so these
conflicts do not occur in a standard build.

MSB

-- 
Do not believe in victory - and defeat will follow.




More information about the lfs-support mailing list