From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Wed Mar 8 20:38:01 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D804CD03505 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0D31FCA for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id B87B5D03504; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8218D03503 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from nm24-vm6.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm24-vm6.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91C181FC9 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1489005314; bh=D1200HnVBOlwn02/F4i4cxWYVpsjAkzcgz9w8/UAsn0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=VbqbRJFofRt9dxO4dK1f7j8vA2+DkqU2opzcM8OXOmNil9M5YPZ23SuWpAeUCrecsEKJ7AtwrK9/6DxdAxmUcgJ/wnXFLIfJa2Y9p5CjI+2J3Nv4YatbA9iQz9d3/t+Y1Uc6atgMwwrcKJJsV6h3sel3Dt9dklSOMlIoWR//FaY= Received: from [216.39.60.176] by nm24.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Mar 2017 20:35:14 -0000 Received: from [67.195.23.148] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Mar 2017 20:35:14 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp120.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Mar 2017 20:35:14 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 758260.1484.bm@smtp120.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: KAxe22QVM1lOe6CI0XvEyTmlOmhI8854W1s7.tc1YRwRVmA jzUjlR7K2fNczQ8lksbQOYPjSk9SOKoBiTR1WCXBxWw9.EcZFZDaupX0zY0c FOCf6vlgVjGSn.WmM7SkEj1SzsZfuKDVUJWLwoJ4nlaQkP7XgG5BKIPS8i4n cPcSNPVzWhJSgiEna8HRbX0P72yUKp0GwKpYJul7NJuyNNAVrqT5Dp3EL3I7 fFjwyKuSYY0ialxbjHfEmAcbySOVFmfQNIBufae4yj3jnDYv_.JWwMXbu.qG HizT0vsN9giqsBVxEGJdXB2Um08QbQOuqxZZEaaXn3sREmhSUpZT8ND1I4wZ LqYrid7nMw7NoL74NUu7g_XQUYu.bXn6pDnXYy9NE32GRQsI0aNXNnchpW9U JIg6IUlGQ_czKRzX2HM1OvDkrIfbRQKPfp2QSieboefR6ZbC9VJn8UPbw9fd XlhwFxEfgjDEBKz5VqYIwHDrMrfoSKjGVottHo_bEhnVc4czr5SwXIEK4PC5 MNezuL4uQCZQ86A6HYbr9Lusoz4XsG9H.YVh4l4XxPVYc5.RtdcKQ7Cw- X-Yahoo-SMTP: pPvqnOaswBBbYZLVYFzvU7GaowLcbNioPp.aF8KvOjZk From: To: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: manpath change for ports ? Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:35:14 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20170306235610.cmpxk27jhoafel6l@ivaldir.net> In-Reply-To: <20170306235610.cmpxk27jhoafel6l@ivaldir.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 20:38:01 -0000 On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 00:56:10 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >Hi all, > >I would like to propose a change in the localbase hier for ports > >I think we should add /usr/local/share/man in the manpath along with at first >and maybe instead of in long term. > >The reason is: >- /usr/local/share/man seems more consistent to me with base which have: > /usr/share/man >- It will remove lots of patches from the ports tree where were we need to patch > upstream build system to install in a non usual path. > >My proposal is to add to the manpath /usr/local/share/man in default man(1) >command in FreeBSD 12 (MFCed to 11-STABLE) > >and either provide an errata for 11.0/10.3 or a >/usr/local/etc/man.d/something.conf via a port or something like that for those >two, what do you think? > >For the same reason I would like to allow porters to stop patching (with pathfix >or anything else) the path for pkgconfig files and allow >/usr/local/lib/pkgconfig along with the current >/usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig:/usr/libdata/pkgconfig > >Which will also remove tons of hacks from the ports tree. > >What do you think? > >Best regards, >Bapt I would argue that the same principle should be followed with *everything*: if it's at or applies to the application level, it should be in /usr/local/, no exceptions. And if that conflicts with the native product documentation (e.g. MySQL, MariaDB), the local mods should be right up at the top of the relevant man page, not on some special web site or in some special documentation hiding in the weeds somewhere. Nobody should have to chase down necessary information; if the man pages are the canonical documentation, then all the facts should be on the man page. And if something is not at the application level, then perhaps this is the right time and place to have a conversation about whether there should be a separate subtree for the layer between the apps and the kernel, too. The desire for long-term stability, predictability, and freedom from bugs is not a joke or a wish for a pony. It's a basic sine-qua-non necessity for production-quality software, especially servers. Would splitting off the middle layer from the kernel help or hinder that goal? The question must be worth a conversation, and the sooner the better.