On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, you wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 07:42:15PM +0800, Ian C.Sison wrote:
> > Because (correct me if i am wrong), the newest RPM has macros that all point to
> > new locations for /usr/doc, /usr/man, /usr/info to somewhere in /usr/share.
>
> Well, if you want the newest stuff, and want no hassle, you very much have
> to upgrade your other packages like man, info and maybe gettext (?). When
> you'd upgrade these packages, you would be able to use the new locations
> *PLUS* the old locations. Where's the problem?
>
> > You don't want this new version of RPM screwing with the old setup by pointing
> > the docs of new packages to /usr/share/{man|doc|info}, as it will be
> > inconsistent with the rest of your (older) distro.
>
> It doesn't screw with the old setup. Just because newer man pages are
> installed in /usr/share/man/* doesn't mean that the old man pages cannot be
> found anymore. And over the time there will be no old packages that put
> stuff in /usr/man, so sooner or later you will have to upgrade. Better
> sooner than later if you ask me.
>
> > What i think is needed is some sort of upgrade SPECfile which contains
> > no new binary of RPM but simply installs the macros, and points the
> > /usr/{man/doc/info} where they should be.
>
> They should be in /usr/share/{man,doc,info} according to FHS 2.1. But I
> still don't understand what you want. Do you want an rpm that just includes
> /usr/lib/rpm/macros? What do you think that would do? It would just help
> you when you rebuild an src.rpm, binary rpms are totally unaffected by the
> (non-)existance of /usr/lib/rpm/macros.
>
> PS: If I talk rubbish, someone please correct me. Thx.
Nope. You make a lot of sense. Maybe i am assuming something wrong about the
whole 'BM' stuff. Let's see how it turns out. Thanks for your insight.
