Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:53:33 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/lcms2 Makefile Message-ID: <20111104075333.GA86357@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111104004552.e5eafd8e.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <201111040341.pA43fLVC046402@repoman.freebsd.org> <20111104002027.b2e8b1bf.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20111104073501.GA83593@FreeBSD.org> <20111104004552.e5eafd8e.stas@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 12:45:52AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:35:01 +0000 > Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > > So how come if it is correct for section N of the manual to use MAN<N>PREFIX > > is it only used in bsd.perl.mk? Frankly speaking I've never seen this > > variable until today, which means vast majority of ports do not use it... > > It doesn't make something correct if everybody uses it. I'm not even saying > that using MANPREFIX is wrong. It just seems to me that I don't think > killing off the correct semantical information from the Makefile is the right > thing to do. If hypothetically in the future the FreeBSD project decides > to use a different prefix for MAN1 this port will work automatically. > > OTOH I don't really care -- I don't use ports personally anymore. It was > just a suggestion, as I think that MAN1PREFIX is there for a reason. Fair enough. Let's try to get more consensus on this issue (read: wait what others have to say). I don't mind reverting this change given good reasons. More importantly, this should be documented in PH with clear "canonical" recommended way of how and where to install manpages. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111104075333.GA86357>