Try this:

  for i in $(echo $PATH | awk 'BEGIN { RS=":" } { print $0 }') ; do find $i
-type f -executable -print0 | xargs -0 file ; done | grep ELF | sort | uniq
| less

I got about 2000 lines.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 10:16 PM American Citizen <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I am attempting to provide enough information on the missing man pages,
> so I spent about 3 hours this evening on this.
>
> I have a linux OpenSuse Leap 15.5 linux system. Running the zipper list
> shows 7,443 installed programs for the software respositories
>
> Here's the results of my investigations tonight
>
> > Bash script files:
> >
> > 1. find . -name * -type executable -print > exefiles
> >    (resulted in a file with 653,455 lines) (done at root location
> > using root permission)
> >
> > 2. executing this bash script
> >    file {"name"} > exefiles.1
> >
> > NOTE: It took about 2 hours of work to get the bash script to
> > successfully complete due to unusual characters in the file name such
> > as pipe quotes tilde, etc. which kept blowing up the script file.
> >
> > 3. Selecting only ELF files from the file run creating exefiles.1
> created:
> >
> >   37604  633501 8644870 exefiles.2
> >
> > 4. Carefully trimming the file narrowed to 18,068 executables (ELF-64)
> >
> >    18068  36157 420729 exefiles.3
> >
> > 5. There were actually only 14,383 unique file names, so obviously the
> > same executables are sprinkled on the whole hard disk in various folders.
> >
> >    localhost:/ # sort -u exefiles.3 | wc
> >       14383   28775  328072
> >
> > 6. Run "man filename" on the exefiles.3 file results in
> >
> >    localhost:/ # wc exefiles.4
> >       668085  5045286 39216490 exefiles.4
> >
> >    which consists of quite some script lines for certain man pages.
> >
> > However checking "No manul entry for {executable}" results in
> >
> >    15,120 lines
> >
> > This is 15120/18068 or 83.686% missing
> >
> > I hope that this satisfies everyone's criteria
> >
> We are missing lots of man information at least on my machine. (and I
> strongly suspect this is true of yours too)
>
> Randall
>
>
>

Reply via email to