FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-21-2007, 05:22 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default Man page symlinks

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?
 
Old 12-21-2007, 08:46 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default Man page symlinks

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.

Reference bug, for those who haven't been following:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8839

-Dan
 
Old 12-22-2007, 06:04 PM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default Man page symlinks

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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:56 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org