On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Rob Lembree wrote: > > This would mean that any layered, possibly licensed product > > have its man pages potentially shared among machines in /usr/share, > > yet the binaries wouldn't necessarily be (not that one would > > particularly want that either!). > > Please note that at installationtime you generally don't know if your > application will be shared amongst machines or not, so imho it doesn't > make a lot of sense to write a policy about that. > > > Ya, that's a good argument, but I wouldn't expect to see a > > 'mount' manpage there though. > > Why not? I can imagine someone using a customized mount with its own > manpage living there..
For example: CheckPoint does use /opt/CKPfw/man for the man page. But I do think it would be silly to have NFS on a firewall. But it wouldn't hurt to export /usr this way. But if the manpage should be private then the software should be as well and installation in /usr would be ill advised. That's why the /opt tree was created. At present it is my opinion that Solaris is propably the most FHS compliant systems around. But I must admit I haven't checked all the linux distributions for their latest versions. (Just checking out SuSE 5.3 this week for some SGML issue's.) Hugo. -- Hugo van der Kooij; Oranje Nassaustraat 16; 3155 VJ Maasland [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~hvdkooij/ -------------------------------------------------------------- Use of any of my email addresses for unsollicited (commercial) email is a clear intrusion of my privacy and illegal!
