Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously John H Terpstra wrote:
> > 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.
> We could say that /usr/share/man is preferred (FHS) but /usr/man should
> still work, either as a symlink or a man-configuration that makes man
> search both locations.
I would agree with that. There are a *very* large number of packages
which assumes that if it installs in <foo>/bin the man pages go into