John Baldwin <[email protected]> writes:
> I wouldn't even mind if we had both /usr/local/man and /usr/local/share/man
> so long as our default MANPATH included both if that means applying fewer
> patches to ports.
The default MANPATH is constructed dynamically from PATH:
1. From each component of the user's PATH for the first of:
- pathname/man
- pathname/MAN
- If pathname ends with /bin: pathname/../man
Note: Special logic exists to make /bin and /usr/bin look in
/usr/share/man for manual files.
If we change this to:
1. From each component of the user's PATH for the first of:
- pathname/man
- pathname/MAN
- If pathname ends with /bin or /sbin: pathname/../man and
pathname/../share/man
we wouldn't need any "special logic", but I really don't like the idea
of having different ports installing man pages in different locations.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
