Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:50:39 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: manpath change for ports ? Message-ID: <86a88tmpe8.fsf@desk.des.no> In-Reply-To: <2721378.xr7MGKcqvA@ralph.baldwin.cx> (John Baldwin's message of "Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:20:48 -0800") References: <20170306235610.cmpxk27jhoafel6l@ivaldir.net> <86mvcvojzt.fsf@desk.des.no> <2721378.xr7MGKcqvA@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes:
> I wouldn't even mind if we had both /usr/local/man and /usr/local/share/m=
an
> so long as our default MANPATH included both if that means applying fewer
> patches to ports.
The default MANPATH is constructed dynamically from PATH:
1. From each component of the user's PATH for the first of:
- pathname/man
- pathname/MAN
- If pathname ends with /bin: pathname/../man
Note: Special logic exists to make /bin and /usr/bin look in
/usr/share/man for manual files.
If we change this to:
1. From each component of the user's PATH for the first of:
- pathname/man
- pathname/MAN
- If pathname ends with /bin or /sbin: pathname/../man and
pathname/../share/man
we wouldn't need any "special logic", but I really don't like the idea
of having different ports installing man pages in different locations.
DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86a88tmpe8.fsf>