config.site

Richard A Downing richard at langside.org.uk
Mon Oct 31 08:36:23 PST 2005


silverspurg at comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> 
>> Because the current way has symlinks /usr/man -> /usr/share/man, etc.
>> It would be nice to get rid of these depending on how picky you are.
> 
> 
> Why don't we just have a regular /usr/man directory?  Why get rid of
> them at all?  What's the rationale behind the individual package devs
> who use the different locations?  I'm sure they have at least some sort
> of mildly reasonable explanation for their preference.
> 
> Steven
> -- 

One thing to note is that with a regular /etc/man.conf, any package that
is in the PATH, as say /opt/useful/bin will have /opt/useful/man in the
the MANPATH automagically.  (I may have this slightly off, but the
principle is correct, see the comments in a freshly installed
/etc/man.conf.)

R.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list