Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: single manpage vs multiple files

X-seq: zsh-workers 18311
From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: single manpage vs multiple files
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:37:30 -0600
In-reply-to: <20030227044911.GA22050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
References: <20030227034129.GA21919@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030226230514.A28631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030227044911.GA22050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

In the last episode (Feb 26), William Park said:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 11:05:14PM -0500, Jason Price wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:41:29PM -0500, William Park wrote:
> > > What is the reason for separating Zsh manpage into several files?  A
> > > single manpage (ie. man zsh) would be easier, no?
> 
> > However, on all the installs I have around have a zshall man page that
> > people can get to if they really want.
> 
> On my Zsh-4.0.1 and -4.0.6, 'zshall.1' and 'zsh.1' are the same.

They're identical?  Or is it just that the .so entries in zshall.1
aren't expanding on your system for some reason?  This can happen if
your system gzips manpages; the FreeBSD port works around this by
running soelim on zshall.1 in the extracted source tree, and installing
the resulting output as zshall.1.gz.

-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

References:
- single manpage vs multiple files
  - From: William Park
- Re: single manpage vs multiple files
  - From: Jason Price
- Re: single manpage vs multiple files
  - From: William Park

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author