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

Re: FHS and X manual pages



On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 06:29:21PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 
> Please don't remove the debian-x cc…

Sorry...

> On Mon, Sep  7, 2009 at 15:49:52 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > it's been pointed out to me that we violate FHS ever since [1] is
> > > included in Debian.
> > > 
> > > The FHS says "All X Window System manual pages must have an x appended
> > > to the filename."
> > 
> > I always wondered what does that actually mean and I interpreted it 
> > (probably wrongly) as saying that e.g. the manpage for XFree should
> > actually be XFree.3x to avoid risk on conflicts with other packages.
> > 
> Yes, that's what that means.  However I don't know of any actual
> conflict (there used to be one for mouse(4), but the manpage for the X
> mouse driver is now called mousedrv(4)).
> 
> > We does that for ncurses, ssh and perl at least and this seems reasonnable
> > for X also.
> > 
> > Could you restate the options for people unfamiliar with xorg packaging ?
> > 
> I'm not sure what needs restating, but I'll try to explain more.
> 
> 1) policy FHS exception, should be clear enough
> 2) patch xutils-dev: means shipping a XORG_MANPAGE_SECTIONS macro that
> differs from upstream.  As that macro is copied to the configure script
> in tarballs by make dist, this means that tarballs created on debian
> systems will carry a patched macro.  Not something I like.
> 3) override suffix for each package: means a change to each and every X
> package (well, the ones that ship manpages, but still) to set some
> variables when running configure, to override the default manpage suffix
> set by the macro
> 4) re-add the x suffix to XORG_MANPAGE_SECTIONS upstream, should be
> clear as well.

Why not try:
5) report the bug to upstream. After all, the FHS is not Debian specific and
if upstream disagree with the x suffix, they maybe the FHS is wrong.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


Reply to: