On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 05:03:08PM +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > 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.
ln -s /usr/local/share/man /usr/local/man should cause the manpages to land where you want. Then port maintainers can sweep ports/ to allow for the removal of symlink. On a side note, it is unfortunate that one cannot set the environmental variable MANPATH as documented without either a mysterious vanishing of man pages or an idiotic warning appear with each invocation of man, apropos, ... -- Steve 20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
