Talk:Man page

From ArchWiki

Add missing Arch-specific man pages + new specific section

It seems a lot of man pages from Arch Linux's projects are missing, which I believe that should be added. I generated a list running the following:

pkgs="arch-install-scripts devtools mkinitcpio namcap netctl pacman pacman-contrib"
for pkg in $pkgs; do
 echo ""
 echo "; {{Pkg|$pkg}}"
 mans=$(pacman -Ql $pkg | grep -E '/man/.*\.gz' | sed 's|.*/man/man[0-9]/||;s|\.gz||' | sort)
 for man in $mans; do
   echo "* {{man|$num|$name}}"

Note how this command split man pages by package name, with an output e.g.:

; {{Pkg|namcap}}
* {{man|1|namcap}}

; {{Pkg|netctl}}
* {{man|1|netctl}}

which is rendered as:


IMHO, adding all of these man pages would increase too much the size of #Noteworthy man pages. Having that said, I'm considering to:

  1. Add a specific section (maybe subsection?) for Arch Linux man pages
  2. Update the list of Arch man pages with the output of the above command; preceded by a brief note regarding being split by package name

Opinions, suggestions, objections?
-- Josephgbr (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arch-specific or not, I don't see the point of showing manuals for projects like pacman or makepkg which have their own pages on the wiki. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, closing this - RafaelFF (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider removing changing Man page#Page width

As of today, it seems to be that the bash function mentioned in this article doesn't serve any purpose, since this functionality is already provided by both man-db and mandoc.

Eisti (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mandoc's man is not controlled by $MANWIDTH. If I remember correctly, man-db's man uses the full terminal width by default, which can be reduced by setting $MANWIDTH. But then it is not dynamic, so the trick in the section selects the minimum of $MANWIDTH and the current terminal width. — Lahwaacz (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can agree that it is useful, but it solves a different problem than what is described in the second paragraph. It then solves the problem of having to read too long lines and it should be rephrased to reflect that IMHO. -- Eisti (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the instructions under "Installation" could be clearer?

The instructions state, "man-pages provides the Linux man pages". But this package isn't needed if we only want to read the man pages of apps we've installed, right (I'm assuming apps on Arch come with a man page)?

Pound Hash (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the text is clear in the information that the package provides Linux man pages, not exactly the executable to read man pages.
Not sure how it was as of the writing of the question, but right now it says:
man-db implements man on Arch Linux, and less is the default pager used with man. mandoc can also be used.
man-pages provides both the Linux and the POSIX.1 man pages [1].
So I guess it is very clear now the difference between the reader application and the man pages themselves.
RafaelFF (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add instructions to install man pages manually

I installed bitcoin packages outside of pacman and needed to add the man pages manually to the system. A quick web search found the answer but could add those instructions here.

simply copying the man files to /usr/local/share/man/man1 or /usr/share/man/man1 does the trick Callmejoe (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not recommend installing stuff without Arch package in the same path as the Arch package would, as this could present a file conflict at some point, causing updates to not move ahead.
Regarding adding instructions to install manually, my 2 cents in the matter is to not add. ArchWiki explains how to use stuff Arch-way (installing package, handling pacman database issues, packaging stuff to be available in Arch official repos or AUR, etc.), so I would rather keep this way.
RafaelFF (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same reasoning from me: files should not be left untracked by the package manager.
-- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well we could add a note somewhere saying where the man pages are located.
simply "man pages are saved to /usr/share/man or usr/local/share/man"
so avoids instructing people to install anything outside of pacman. Callmejoe (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]