Bug 1004 - XDarwin(1) manpage included on Linux OS builds
Summary: XDarwin(1) manpage included on Linux OS builds
Alias: None
Product: xorg
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Server/DDX/XQuartz (show other bugs)
Version: git
Hardware: x86 (IA32) Linux (All)
: lowest trivial
Assignee: Torrey T. Lyons
QA Contact:
Depends on:
Reported: 2004-08-06 17:08 UTC by Mike A. Harris
Modified: 2006-04-14 12:13 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:


Description Mike A. Harris 2004-08-06 17:08:29 UTC
After a Linux build has completed and installed, the manpage
/usr/X11R6/man/man1/XDarwin.1x.gz is installed on the system.  Not
very useful on Linux.
Comment 1 Torrey T. Lyons 2004-08-06 18:00:41 UTC
Any idea how this happens? It should be possible to track this down from an install log. On Darwin, the 
XDarwin man page is installed by the Imakefile in Xserver/hw/darwin, which Linux should not be using. 
The manpage lives in this directory.

On the other hand, a reason someone might want the XDarwin man page installed is that it is 
mentioned in the the Xorg manpage along with XWin, the Cygwin X server. Is the XWin manpage 
Comment 2 Mike A. Harris 2004-08-07 14:15:44 UTC
No, the XWin manpage isn't installed.  Documenting software that doesn't ship
with the packages seems to be a broken idea IMHO.  Ultimately the Xorg manpage
being dynamic and only referencing other pages that actually exist on a given
platform would be nice, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be to implement
that.  The simple solution here, is to just not install XDarwin.1x on Linux.
Comment 3 Torrey T. Lyons 2004-08-09 09:35:24 UTC
A quick "grep -r XDarwin.man *" reveals that the XDarwin man page is included by xc/doc/man/misc/
Imakefile. The comment at the top of the Imakefile reveals it is doing exactly what it is designed to do 
and that it installs a number of other manpages without binaries besides XDarwin.

 * This Imakefile is intended to make it possible to install man pages
 * for architectures other than the one the build is done on.  So far,
 * it is only set up for builds on XFree86/ix86 platforms, which means that
 * it only includes those man pages not normally installed there:
 * XFree86 Linux/mips:  newport
 * XFree86 Linux/sparc: sunbw2, suncg14, suncg3, suncg6, sunffb, sunleo,
 *                      suntcx
 * XFree86 Linux/ix86:  v4l, glide
 * XFree86 Linux:       ur98
 * XFree86 Darwin:      XDarwin, dumpkeymap

I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not this is desirable behavior. (According to the Imakefile 
comment it is a bug that it does not include the XWin man page.) There is precedent to install man 
pages for files that don't ship with packages. The XDarwin man page also clearly indicates that it is for 
Darwin/Mac OS X only and would be taken by a Linux reader as purely informational. Perhaps Roland 
can give more details on this since he was the last person to touch this file.
Comment 4 Kevin E. Martin 2004-08-09 12:33:50 UTC
It has been this way for quite a while -- going back at least until 2001.  I
don't know whether I consider this a bug or not.

Should this really be a release blocker?
Comment 5 Mike A. Harris 2004-08-09 23:28:32 UTC
In a standard Red Hat X build, the XDarwin manpage has never appeared, which
is how I discovered this.  When updating to a new X release, any files that
are present after installation into the buildroot, but are not listed in
the file lists, get flagged by rpm, which warns of the files existing in
the buildroot.  The manpage was there for a long time perhaps, but was never
installed on Linux before, at least on Red Hat systems.

I marked the issue as "trivial" as it isn't a major issue either way, however
while I assessed it as a bug myself, if others consider it not to be a bug,
I've no strong feelings either way, and I've patched our rpms to remove the
file post %install section.

Not particularly a release blocker I guess.
Comment 6 Kevin E. Martin 2004-08-11 15:45:18 UTC
After discussing this with the release wranglers, it was decided that if anyone
has time to do this before the release it would be considered for inclusion, but
it is not a release blocker.

Taking off blocker list.
Comment 7 Chris Lee 2005-07-04 16:43:29 UTC
Is this still valid? 
Comment 8 Mike A. Harris 2005-07-04 21:31:36 UTC
Yes, this is still valid.
Comment 9 Adam Jackson 2006-04-15 05:13:26 UTC
doesn't happen in 7.1.

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.