[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#636278: nfs.5 man syntax error: sentence missing



Package: nfs-common
Version: 1:1.2.4-1
Tags: patch 
Severity: minor

Hi,

During update of manpages-fr-extra, po4a complained about syntax issues with
nfs.5 manpage from nfs-utils.

It's not only nitpicking for po4a, as it prevents as well some part of the
manpages from being displayed by the pager, a full sentence cannot be displayed:

 To  support  legacy  flock  behavior  similar  to that of NFS clients < 2.6.12,
-use Samba as Samba maps Windows share mode locks as flock. Since NFS clients >
+use ´local_lock=flock´. This option is required when exporting NFS mounts via
+Samba as Samba maps Windows share mode locks as flock. Since NFS clients >
 2.6.12 implement flock by emulating POSIX locks, this will result in
 conflicting locks.

This is actually already spotted by lintian: 
http://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/debian-kernel@lists.debian.org.html#nfs-utils

Find attached the patch against your current git tree.


-- 
Simon Paillard
>From 09a8a502769a110703bf7424037728d987f50f57 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Paillard <spaillard@debian.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 00:13:31 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] nfs.man: escape ' nroff for proper rendering

---
 utils/mount/nfs.man |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/utils/mount/nfs.man b/utils/mount/nfs.man
index be91a25..639c931 100644
--- a/utils/mount/nfs.man
+++ b/utils/mount/nfs.man
@@ -753,7 +753,7 @@ is specified, the client assumes that POSIX locks are local and uses NLM
 sideband protocol to lock files when flock locks are used.
 .IP
 To support legacy flock behavior similar to that of NFS clients < 2.6.12, use
-'local_lock=flock'. This option is required when exporting NFS mounts via
+\'local_lock=flock\'. This option is required when exporting NFS mounts via
 Samba as Samba maps Windows share mode locks as flock. Since NFS clients >
 2.6.12 implement flock by emulating POSIX locks, this will result in
 conflicting locks.
-- 
1.7.2.5


Reply to: