Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:58:48 +0200 From: Anton Berezin <tobez@tobez.org> To: Alex Kapranoff <kapr@crosswinds.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: proper place for manpages of utilities installed by p5-ports Message-ID: <20010614145848.B54042@heechee.tobez.org> In-Reply-To: <20010614094201.A847@kapran.bitmcnit.bryansk.su>; from kapr@crosswinds.net on Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:42:02AM %2B0400 References: <20010613203551.A31689@heechee.tobez.org> <20010614094201.A847@kapran.bitmcnit.bryansk.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:42:02AM +0400, Alex Kapranoff wrote:
> * Anton Berezin <tobez@tobez.org> [June 13 2001, 22:35]:
> > There's an update of the www/p5-HTML-Embperl port by Alex Kapranoff.
> > This port, among other things, installs a script to ${LOCALBASE}/bin,
> > and puts its manpage to ${PREFIX}/lib/perl5/${PERL_VERSION}/man/man1. I
> > wonder whether this is the correct place to install the manpage, or not.
>
> There's a whole bunch of such ports:
> > There might be the following points of view:
> >
> > 1. It's a wrong place. If the script is in bin/, the manpage should
> > be in man/man1/.
> >
> > 2. It's the right place, but the port should @unexec rmdir
> > %D/lib/perl5/${PERL_VERSION}/man/man1, since this directory is not
> > in the BSD.local.dist mtree.
> >
> > 3. It's the right place, and BSD.local.dist should list man/man1 for
> > perl, as it now lists man/man3.
> >
> > 4. p5 ports should not install executables (just kidding).
> Most of the aforementioned ports use the first method. Seems like I
> should go with the others.
I have no problems with this. If by tomorrow we don't have any other
comments, I'll commit the corrected version that uses (1).
+Anton.
--
May the tuna salad be with you.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010614145848.B54042>