[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.


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: