Paul:
I tried to keep it simple on my end with just the ELF-64 file
description. When I first saw all the scripts and other items pop-up
under the category "executable" I was dismayed for awhile, but decided
to keep it to that known file type which definitely IS an executable.
This trimmed the files down from the 600K to the 14K or so (on my system)
Randall
On 3/25/24 07:19, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024, American Citizen wrote:
Paul:
Thanks for your post. Exactly what would you consider a valid
statement for locating the executables?
Finding executable files is not, to my mind, the same as find
executable files for which I'd expect a man page.
I'd suppose expect a man page for most occupants of
* /bin
* /usr/bin
* /usr/sbin
* /sbin
Some denizens of /usr/libexec might warrant man pages too.
One problem is that a lot of files in /usr/bin are symlinks or wrapper
scripts; I'm not sure there's any "right" way to deal with them.
Another problem is utilities that are often superceded by shell
builtin commands. Most people don't run /usr/bin/test; they use the
shell builtin 'test' or '['. So a man page for /usr/bin/test might be
deceptive if its operations are not identical with those of your shell.
Yet another problem is with schemes like /etc/alternatives that map a
common utility name to a specific release. Different distributions
handle alternatives differently; I don't have a suse system, so you'd
need to look at your own setup to see what alternatives can be set there.
I guess this is my long-winded way of saying that I'm not sure I know
how I'd go about identifying "executables I should reasonably expect
to have a man page" on my systems.
