Em 17-02-2014 00:19, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 03:04:28AM +0100, Armin K. wrote:
>> On 02/17/2014 02:19 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> I've just completed my normal build, on a system which is typically
>>> about a week old. This time, I removed the /usr/man and /usr/info
>>> symlinks. I don't have anything in /usr/info, but several packages
>>> have scribbled in /usr/man, and many of them are in BLFS.
>>>
>>> Is it worth me taking time to fix them in the book ?
>>>
>>> ĸen
>>>
>>
>> Yes please, I can help you there if you like.
>>
> Some of them are in fact already fixed in BLFS, I'm down only three
> which are in the book and not fixed.
>
> I'm not intending to run individual test builds on any of these
> packages (I'll be building 7.5 as soon as I've completed some
> functional tests in my current build, and updated my scripts for
> changes in the last week), so it is possible that one or more of
> these might not do the right thing. But what I currently think is
> needed is:
>
> (configure) --mandir=/usr/share/man for links, paps (and also for
> lsdvd, normalize and rtmpdump which are not in the book).
>
> add MANDIR=/usr/share/man/man1 to the install for tree.
>
> I can fix these in a few days, after I confirm that the fixes are
> correct.
>
> ĸen
>
I used that, you even referred to, after, I was able to get the good
placement without it.
$ tree DEST-tree-1.6.0
DEST-tree-1.6.0
└── usr
├── bin
│ └── tree
└── man
└── man1
└── tree.1
This is without the mandir override. Do you get it different?
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
