Re: usr/man vs usr/share/man?
Raul> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 04:18:19PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >> Didn't we come up with a good and reasonable solution to that problem? =p
> Raul> Well, to deal with one particular aspect of incrementel upgrading there
> Raul> are some people (very competent developers, overall) who are seriously
> Raul> proposing that *every*single*package* must be changed and re-released
> Raul> for potato. That means those that have not yet migrated to FHS as well
> Raul> as those which have. And that inevitably means that potato's release
> Raul> will be delayed.
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 09:20:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Is this not just an issue of swetting MANPATH defaults? The
> current /etc/manpath.config already contains
That works fine for the specific case of /usr/man -> /usr/share/man/.
I tried to mention that in the last paragraph of the message you're
quoting. I guess I wasn't explicit enough.
My point was that since the adoption of FHS did not introduce the
/usr/man -> /usr/share/man transition isolated from the /usr/doc ->
/usr/share/doc transition, the policy change still is causing packages
to break.
--
Raul
P.S. Manoj: I'm not cc'ing this to debian-ctte since I don't think it
adds any new information. I did approve your message for debian-ctte,
because it was at least on-topic. [Maybe you could approve your own
messages to debian-ctte in the future?]
Reply to: