On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:50:39 +0100 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I grepped the ports tree and found nearly 5700 ports. That's a lot to change all at once but it may be doable. It depends on how much fallout there is in the exp-run. Ports are installed into a staging area now where files can be moved to another location. So a post-install make target could be added that moves the man pages to share/man if necessary (and prints a warning to maintainers in that case). Then all pkg-plist and PLIST_FILES need to be modified (with sed) and PORTREVISION needs to be bumped (also scripted). The same could be done to move info and pkgconfig files. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
