On Dec 21, 2007 4:46 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 12:22 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, Jan brought this up twice now and I want to flesh this out.
> >
> > This is in relation to the filesystem/bash upgrades.
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 4:01 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> > > So what does this do when /usr/man/man3 is a directory with manpages
> > > and /usr/man/man3 is a symlink to /usr/share/man/man3 in the new package?
> > > Shouldn't we move /usr/man to /usr/share/man in pre_install and pre_upgrade?
> >
> > Firstly, I don't think we should have these symlinks in the filesystem
> > package at all simply because /usr/man is not specified in the FHS
> > anywhere. We should technically never have a /usr/man dir at the
> > completion of this ideal.
> > If a *package* installs it, fine.
> >
> > By unsetting MANPATH in /etc/profile, man looks up pages via
> > /etc/man.conf which includes both of these directories.
> >
> > In addition, by using symlinks at all, we run into the
> > potential-and-always-confusing-possibly-working symlink/dir
> > replacement stuff in pacman.
> >
> > Additionally, moving the man pages isn't a good idea. makepkg will NOT
> > move them anymore.
> >
> > So, here's what we're left with:
> >
> > * Newly built packages will install to /usr/share/man
> > * man will search both /usr/man and /usr/share/man for man pages
> > * pacman -Qo will provide us with packages which need a rebuild
> >
> > It allows us to phase in the FHS man pages, and not do it all in one
> > big lump. Backwards compat and all that.
> >
> > Is this acceptable?
>
> Exactly what I was thinking, well said. +1.
+1
Man page symlinks
