macports.users at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 20:05:46 PST 2008
"man" is a port itself. I installed it yesterday.
P.S.: I am gonna go ahead and file the ticket.
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 05:56, Charlse Darwin wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:52 PM, Matrix Mole wrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 2008 7:26 PM, Charlse Darwin wrote:
>>>> What happened here?!
>>>> $ which man
>>>> $ man man
>>> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that man isn't sending the
>>> output to a troff processor properly. The output you pasted in your
>>> message looks like formatting code, I'm guessing it's the formatting
>>> code of an official man page before it gets processed properly by
>>> man program.
>>> Unfortunately, I have no clue how to fix it. On my system, the only
>>> man program that exists is in /usr/bin, you might try using
>>> /usr/bin/man man and see what you get for output. Then perhaps use
>>> 'file /opt/local/bin/man' and 'file /usr/bin/man' and check the
>>> differences. Not sure if diff would help in this case other than to
>>> tell you that they are different binaries.
>> # System's man works just fine
>> $ /usr/bin/man -v
>> man, version 1.6c
>> $ /opt/local/bin/man -v
>> man, version 1.6f
> So the system's "man" works but the MacPorts-provided "man"
> doesn't? Then you should file a ticket against whatever port
> installed "man". (Find out with "port provides /opt/local/bin/man").
More information about the macports-users