Re: pathchk info page should mention other leading brand

[Jim Meyering]

Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> wrote:
...

Thanks!  That looks fine.
Minor nits in log message:

>>From fbe9201e5e2812bfc112ea05c317b194c98bb4f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 01:06:10 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: pathchk description enhancements
>
> * doc/coreutils.text (pathchk invocation): Mention pathchk

s/text/texi/

> checks validity (for current system) as well as portability.
> Say messages go to stderr, and reorder description of checks
> done for the -p option, to match that done in code.

s/that/(those|what's)/

> * src/pathchk.c (usage): Mention pathchk checks name validity.
> Suggested clarifications were from Dan Jacobson.