Re: /usr/share/man
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Julie wrote:
> From: Rob Lembree <lembree@sgi.com>
> > >/usr/share/man alone is not sufficient. Not all man pages are platform
> > >independant. I'd favour keeping both therefore
> >
> > Or even system independent. Software installed here may not be
> > installed there. I would also vote to maintain both, with clear
> > guidelines as to why one might choose one over the other.
>
> How is this going to solve the issue of system-independent
> commands which expect to find system-idependent manpages
> in /usr/man? My vote is a symbolic link from /usr/man to
> /usr/share/man.
>
> I thought the "local commands manpages" convention was
> /usr/local/man anyway?
My 0.02 are to go to /usr/share/man and keep /usr/man as a symlink. As far
as I know it should work for all legacy stuff around but still clearly
mark the path to go.
It is known that manpages could be in several places so software should
handle it more or less dynamically anyway:
/usr/man traditionally
/usr/share/man newer
/usr/local/man for some local software
/opt/.../man some packages put these in their own tree
/var/opt/.../man or under the var stuff for packages
$HOME/man my own kitchensink stuff (manpage make a
great cookbook in you kitchen if you
happen to have a terminal installed
there.)
I have seen them all except the /var/opt/.../man types.
Hugo.
--
Hugo van der Kooij; Oranje Nassaustraat 16; 3155 VJ Maasland
hvdkooij@caiw.nl http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~hvdkooij/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Use of any of my email addresses for unsollicited (commercial)
email is a clear intrusion of my privacy and illegal!
Reply to: