Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/20/07 16:04 CST: > Although this works for this one man page, it only removes two specific > UTF-8 characters in a specified sequence. There are potentially 254 > additional characters that this command does not change. It is not a > general solution for all man pages.
It is not intended to be a general fix. It is specific to the affected man page. Please review the notes in the Trac ticket (#2102). All the questions you've been asking about this should be answered there. > Maybe there aren't any others. I haven't checked. However, others *have* checked. And each bad page has been identified (and now fixed, once I make my next commit). > I personally think this sets a bad precedent. Why? I initially thought that too, read the comments in the bug. But I'm on the other side of the fence now. Chiefly, because Alex has said if we create a ticket for bad pages, he'll supply a solution. And since only about 5 packages totaling about 20 man pages (out of the over 12,600 on my system) are affected, it is simply too easy of a task *not* to do it. Besides, precedent is set in *LFS* (see the Shadow instructions), BLFS is just following along. :-) > Do we need to check the > info pages too? No, the bug is manifested using Man-db to display man pages. > What is the harm in leaving the man pages the way they are? They display improperly formatted characters, and/or produce unreadable man pages. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 16:08:00 up 10 days, 16:22, 1 user, load average: 2.03, 1.21, 0.58 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
