Arch Linux

I'm really confused by this bug... are you saying that there was a bug until you merged the .pacnew config file?

No.....i.e. There was NO merge, as the /etc/man.conf from the older package had not been edited by me. SO, the newer man.conf was directly overlaid as per how pacman (should) work(s). The /etc/man.conf from the newer package caused the problems. So I left the newer version of man-<version-number>.pkg.tar.gz installed but replaced the /etc/man.conf with the same file from the older version of the man package. Then the output was no longer garbled with odd items as exampled in this trouble report. Diff the two /etc/man.conf's from the latest version and the one immediately proceeding it to see what was changed.

I get this problem too.

Two lines are different in man.conf between 1.6f-1 and 1.6f-2:

In the old package:
# (Maybe - but today I need -Tlatin1 to prevent double conversion to utf8.)
NROFF /usr/bin/nroff -Tlatin1 -mandoc -c
NEQN /usr/bin/geqn -Tlatin1

In the new package:
# (Maybe - but today I need to prevent double conversion to utf8.)
NROFF /usr/bin/nroff -mandoc -c
NEQN /usr/bin/geqn


Adding "-Tlatin1" to the 1.6f-2 man.conf (=replacing the new man.conf with the old one) makes it work properly for me. I use rxvt-unicode 9.02-2.

Thanks peets, I am now able to understand this bug.

Going forward, concise bug reports help all of us. I'm typically of the mind close bug reports that are cryptically worded, but I make allowances for non-native english speakers.

Did you guy merge /etc/profile correctly and remove LESSCHARSET? Please try:

unset LESSCHARSET
man man

Three comments, and then you should be able to decide on closing this without any further action or ??

1 - While man man was/is NOT a valid test, (in as much as this particular man page did/does not exhibit any issues); the "unset LESSCHARSET" of course DOES create a solution of sorts. And I was able to specifically test this on man pages that DO have the issue in question. I will therefore be adding that declaration to my ~/.bashrc and to any specific profiling where appropriate.

2 - I am guessing that you meant to use another word other than "concise" to describe what it is you are seeking in trouble/bug reports as Merriam-Webster's defines "concise" this way ": marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail". My explanation was sufficient and demonstrated "brevity" BUT *was* enough for a Pierre-Paul (which is NOT an "english" name by the way,) to be able to ascertain what it was I was describing. Therefore there WAS enough detail to understand the nature of the problem in my report. <- So, I am guessing you MEANT that you wanted MORE details and elaboration of same. This I will endeavor to do in the future.

3 - Finally I reconfirmed that there was/is NO merge of the two different man.conf files, but rather a direct overlay. This, as I mentioned above, IS the expected behavior of pacman in these situations. As such, there was no merging or other intervention, but rather just an abrupt failure of man (on *some* man pages).

OH YEAH , sorry I should also have included this comment above:

THANK YOU Aaron for sticking with this and not being tempted to remove it. I feel that was the correct course of action. AND it allows you to see how this minor change in the man.conf caused a problem. <- And that is EXACTLY why I filed it in the first place, as the unset is a solution that I could have just done last Thursday and NOT reported the problem to the devs.