TOC for man

[Joseph Sinclair]

I'd say that a script to push non-info manpages into info would be highly useful.
Especially if you create a subcategory for the pages you insert.  If it's tight enough
and general enough, it might even encourage package maintainers to add their manpages
into info (even as-is info does provide some benefit, like the TOC you're looking for)

On an aside, I happen to generally agree that info does not have the best interface,
but even a poor interface to a TOC is better than no TOC.

Eric "Shubes" wrote:
> That's more what I'm looking for, Joseph. I've poked around with info a bit,
> but didn't think of it. As you say though, unfortunately most of what I'm
> looking for isn't in there.
> 
> Would you suggest that I spend some time learning "info" and figuring out
> how to put the man pages I'm interested in into the info index instead of
> writing a "mansfor" script?
> 
> Appreciate your advice.
> 
> Joseph Sinclair wrote:
>> Try "Info".  Info is the replacement that GNU created for man.  Unfortunately it never really caught on, but most of the core system tools and quite a bit of other things are in the Info index.
>>
>> Eric "Shubes" wrote:
>>> I'm tired of hunting for man pages. My problem is, "man what"?
>>>
>>> I usually know what package I'm looking for some documentation about (or
>>> want to learn about), so I "rpm -ql package | grep man" to see what man
>>> pages are available.
>>>
>>> Is there a better way? Of course there could be. I've googled and came up
>>> with nothing that's CLI oriented (which is what I want).
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of writing a script:
>>> mansfor [package_name]
>>> that will give me a nice menu of man pages to browse for a particular
>>> package. That would satisfy my immediate need. Then I'd probably add -s to
>>> search for a string included in a package_spec, and optional section numbers
>>> to filter, so it'd look more like
>>> mansfor {section_number} ... {-s} [package_spec]
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of something like this that already exists? I'm just not
>>> inclined to reinvent the wheel.
> 
>