Re: /usr/share/man
On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Sean Channel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Jim Kingdon wrote:
>
> ]As people who were in New York will recall, we (very) briefly
> ]discussed the subject of /usr/share/man on Friday. I asked Cristian
> ]about this today; he said that he had no desire to switch from
> ]/usr/man to /usr/share/man (if I understood him correctly the
> ]rationale was that Unix has used /usr/man since time immemorial and
> ]although there is a certain logic to /usr/share/man there isn't a
> ]compelling reason to switch).
>
> I more often see /usr/man as a symbolic link to /usr/share/man
> for backward compatability. I've also noticed more and more
> applications using /usr/share for common files. Personally,
> I would vote for /usr/share/man, but I don't think it matters
> much.
We have gone to a lot of trouble to make the change from /usr/man to
/usr/share/man because we agree with this move. We do believe that the
symbolic link from /usr/man to /usr/share/man is a necessity for backwards
compatibility.
I hope that this issue can be resolved in favour of the /usr/share/man
decision but at the end of the day this is not a major issue.
- John H Terpstra
>
> -s
>
> ]
> ](feel free to forward this message to fhs-discuss if desired).
> ]
> ]
> ]--
> ]
> ]To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> ]with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
> ]
>
>
> --
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>
Reply to: