Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-11 Thread shawn wilson
While I like the dhelp script idea, I think man is a pure UX issue - man should generally DWIM because if I type "man foo", I don't want to jump through hoops. There times (looking at libraries and system calls and the like) that knowing the system helps. However, with >20 (IDR how many - a bunch)

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-11 Thread songbird
Andrei POPESCU wrote: > songbird wrote: >> are you suggesting which be altered or the >> manual page be amended to include more information >> about what to do when which fails to report any >> matching command? > > I'd rather see which(1) be more informative about built-ins. there's a lot of

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-11 Thread Andrei POPESCU
On Lu, 10 nov 14, 21:49:30, songbird wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote: > >> zsh, however, is more helpful: > >> > >> $ which umask > >> umask: shell built-in command > > > > Maybe a (wishlist) bug against debianutils is in order? > > is zsh providing a

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-10 Thread songbird
Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote: >>=20 >> Iain M Conochie writes: >>=20 >> > However: >> >=20 >> > $: which umask >> > $: >> >=20 >> > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary >> > called umask on the system) >>=20 >> zsh, however, is more h

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-04 Thread Carl Fink
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:38:40AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > My apologies, > your question(s?) were unclear and obfuscated with false > assertions. > > Hopefully a "beginner" would start at the start, i.e.:- > help help > info info > man man So you've never met a beginner and fo

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-04 Thread Scott Ferguson
On 03/11/14 13:56, Alexis wrote: > > Iain M Conochie writes: > >> However: >> >> $: which umask >> $: >> >> So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary >> called umask on the system) > > zsh, however, is more helpful: > > $ which umask > umask: shell built-in command BAS

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-04 Thread Scott Ferguson
On 02/11/14 16:58, Carl Fink wrote: > On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Succinct! >> >> man pam_umask? > > That is not a solution to the original question I asked, My apologies, your question(s?) were unclear and obfuscated with false assertions. Hopefully

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-04 Thread berenger . morel
Le 03.11.2014 04:30, Joe Pfeiffer a écrit : Carl Fink writes: When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed to be for C header files and came from section 2.) This is darn confusing for a

Re: Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-03 Thread Andrei POPESCU
On Lu, 03 nov 14, 13:56:36, Alexis wrote: > > Iain M Conochie writes: > > > However: > > > > $: which umask > > $: > > > > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary > > called umask on the system) > > zsh, however, is more helpful: > > $ which umask > umask: shell buil

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-03 Thread Alexis
Karl E. Jorgensen writes: > Well, it *appears* that zsh is more helpful. But only because the > "which" command itself is a built-in for zsh :-) (it isn't for bash) > > So you have the opposite problem: "man which" gives you the wrong > manual page :-) (but presumably very similar) Indeed you'

Re: Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-03 Thread Karl E. Jorgensen
Hi On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:56:36PM +1100, Alexis wrote: > > Iain M Conochie writes: > > > However: > > > > $: which umask > > $: > > > > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary > > called umask on the system) > > zsh, however, is more helpful: > > $ which umask >

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Alexis
Joe Pfeiffer writes: > The underlying problem is that umask isn't a standalone command, it's a > shell builtin. So if you look at the bash manpage you can find the > (very terse) documention; of course, there's no hint anywhere that you > should do that. Just as for (looking at some other built

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Joel Rees
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, The Wanderer wrote: > [...] > You might be able to find something out from 'man -d umask', and > examining the resulting debugging output... it seems to indicate exactly > what file it ends up using, and what path it takes in figuring out what > file to use. Though

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Joe Pfeiffer
Carl Fink writes: > When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man > page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed > to be for C header files and came from section 2.) > > This is darn confusing for a new user. I have been around long enough

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread The Wanderer
On 11/02/2014 at 09:44 PM, Joel Rees wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:26 AM, The Wanderer > wrote: > >> On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote: >> >>> Seems to be done, not by symlink, but in the man db. >> >> What leads you to that conclusion? >> >> AFAIK, if 'man xyz' brings up a man

Re: Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Alexis
Iain M Conochie writes: > However: > > $: which umask > $: > > So umask is _not_ a program (in the sense that there is no binary > called umask on the system) zsh, however, is more helpful: $ which umask umask: shell built-in command Alexis. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ..

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Joel Rees
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:26 AM, The Wanderer wrote: > On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > >> [...] >> Seems to be done, not by symlink, but in the man db. > > What leads you to that conclusion? > > AFAIK, if 'man xyz' brings up a man page from section 1, then there is > an xyz.1 or xyz.

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Iain M Conochie
Perhaps apropos is your friend here? :$ apropos umask pam_umask (8)- PAM module to set the file mode creation mask As I said in the original, I found it almost immediately. However, doesn't the Debian policy manual require a man page for every program? Not being a DD or DM I cannot

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Carl Fink
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 03:51:25PM +, Iain M Conochie wrote: > > On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote: > >On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >>Succinct! > >> > >>man pam_umask? > >That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you > >alias it to man umask

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread John Hasler
Joel Rees writes: > I think there was an OS back way back when, that had a "learn" > command. (As in, "I want to `learn' about .") Don't remember > which, though. Or it might have been an app. UNIX: http://itservices.usc.edu/unix/commands/learn/ -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread The Wanderer
On 11/02/2014 at 10:51 AM, Iain M Conochie wrote: > On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote: > >> On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> >>> Succinct! >>> >>> man pam_umask? >> >> That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless >> you alias it to man umask. You

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Iain M Conochie
On 02/11/14 05:58, Carl Fink wrote: On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: Succinct! man pam_umask? That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you alias it to man umask. You don't _type_ pam_umask. Carl Perhaps apropos is your friend here? :$ apropos

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread The Wanderer
On 11/02/2014 at 10:12 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:35 PM, The Wanderer > wrote: > >> On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote: >>> Hmm. What do I get when I try to do a man umask? >>> >>> BASH_BUILTINS (1) >>> >>> I wonder why. I have a memory of doing something like ins

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Joel Rees
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:35 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > >> 2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" : >> >>> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got >>> the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C >>> programmer, but it seemed t

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread The Wanderer
On 11/02/2014 at 03:23 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > 2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" : > >> When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got >> the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C >> programmer, but it seemed to be for C header files and came from >> section 2.) >> >>

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Joel Rees
2014/11/02 11:19 "Carl Fink" : > > When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man > page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed > to be for C header files and came from section 2.) > > This is darn confusing for a new user. I have been around

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-02 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2014-11-02 04:06 +0100, The Wanderer wrote: > On 11/01/2014 at 10:18 PM, Carl Fink wrote: > >> Surely a symbolic link could be set up for umask as well as the >> others (bg, eval, fg, read, etc.)? > > One could, but I don't think I'd say it would be a good idea, and > although the Debian bash m

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-01 Thread Carl Fink
On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 14:17 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Succinct! > > man pam_umask? That is not a solution to the original question I asked, unless you alias it to man umask. You don't _type_ pam_umask. Carl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-01 Thread Scott Ferguson
On 02/11/14 13:27, John Hasler wrote: > An addition to the "See Also" section of the umask man page would > suffice. > Succinct! man pam_umask? Kind regards -- "Turns out you can't back a winner in the Gish Gallop" ~ disappointed punter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-01 Thread Scott Ferguson
On 02/11/14 13:18, Carl Fink wrote: > When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man > page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed > to be for C header files and came from section 2.) > > This is darn confusing for a new user. Agreed (also

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-01 Thread The Wanderer
On 11/01/2014 at 10:18 PM, Carl Fink wrote: > When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the > man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but > it seemed to be for C header files and came from section 2.) > > This is darn confusing for a new user. I hav

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-01 Thread Roman Czyborra
Dear Carl Fink, my unpleasant experience so far is that our package maintainers are keener on keeping their bug closing rate appear very fast in the statistical competition than in understanding and catering to your visions of user-friendlines. Unless you mind disappointments try that path also. Y

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-01 Thread Carl Fink
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 09:27:39PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > An addition to the "See Also" section of the umask man page would > suffice. It isn't a general solution, though. Commands like fg just don't have man pages. The symlink idea actually served to help (and educate) the new user. -- Carl

Re: umask has no man page?

2014-11-01 Thread John Hasler
An addition to the "See Also" section of the umask man page would suffice. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.d

umask has no man page?

2014-11-01 Thread Carl Fink
When I wanted the options for umask, I typed 'man umask' and got the man page for it as a C header diretive? (I'm not a C programmer, but it seemed to be for C header files and came from section 2.) This is darn confusing for a new user. I have been around long enough (slink) that I quickly realiz