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

Re: Bug#61058: FHS: /usr/local/share/man instead of /usr/local/man ?

On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:54:53AM +0300, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:34:39PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Package: man-db
> > Version: 2.3.15
> > Severity: normal
> > 
> > I'm not sure about this, but if FHS uses /usr/share/man, shouldn't we then
> > also search in /usr/local/share/man, for symmetry reasons ? Currently,
> > manpath.config *only* has /usr/local/man, but no /usr/local/share/man, while
> > it has both /usr/man as well as /usr/share/man.
> I don't see any mention of "/usr/local/share/man" in FHS, while I see
> references to "/usr/local/man" .
> It has only a small advice on "/usr/local/share", like "it's permitted
> to be used" :-)
> In any case man-db do not create /usr/local/man, and won't create
> /usr/local/share/man.
> man-db surely will not have "/usr/local/share/man" as default in the
> manpath config untill it exists on a debian system (to avoid unnecessary
> and boring warnings), so, please, ask debian-devel or debian-policy
> about the issue of creating that dir, and in case that dir will be
> created, I will take care of adding it to the default config.
> Please, reassign, downgrade or close this non-bug at will.

Aaargh. I give up on FHS. I have to admit that I haven't read the FHS
document, and indeed, it does mention /usr/share/man specifically, and it
doesn't mention /usr/local/share/man.

OTOH, if we're going by the word, the Debian Policy (3.1.2 Site-specific
programs) says: "The directory /usr/local' itself may only contain the
sub-directories listed in FHS, section 4.6.". FHS 4.6 (/usr/local: Local
hierarchy) lists

  /usr/local -- Local hierarchy
  +-bin       Local binaries
  +-games     Local game binaries
  +-include   Local C header files
  +-lib       Local libraries
  +-sbin      Local system binaries
  +-share     Local architecture-independent hierarchy
  +-src       Local source code

but no /usr/local/man. Furthermore FHS 4.8 (/usr/share:
Architecture-independent data) says

   "Any program or package which contains or requires data that doesn't need
   to be modified should store that data in /usr/share (or /usr/local/share,
   if installed locally).  It is recommended that a subdirectory be used in
   /usr/share for this purpose."

Therefore, FHS is at least self-contradicting.   

I reassign this bug to debian-policy, perhaps the debian-policy list could
discuss this.

IMHO it's indeed a real world problem: IMHO applications using configure
will start to install manpages in ${prefix}/share/man, since this is the
correct place for --prefix=/usr according to FHS.


Attachment: pgpWNmXnmidhg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: