On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 10:40 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2007 1:44 AM, Jan de Groot <email@example.com> wrote:
> > You still haven't looked at the issue with /usr/man/man* getting replaced by a symlink, which is not possible on a system where manpages are already installed.
> But that can be covered at a later date. The actual "support" for this
> is simply unsetting MANPATH. If a package installs man pages to
> /usr/man/man1 it will still be looked up just fine.
> The makepkg 3.1 will no longer move man pages to /usr/man, so I don't
> think we should do any moving until that is out the door.
> Could you explain to me how the symlink will help? It seems like, to
> me, we're just going to confuse the crap out of pacman when it tries
> to install/upgrade. With the current implementation, man pages will
> work regardless of where they are.
Hmm, I must have been mistaken. I read the diff from the commit list,
not the whole PKGBUILD. There was something with these two lines coming
I mistakenly read the ln -s operation on the second line to be a
symlink to /usr, where it's actually just a man3x symlink.
One thing wrong with this package though: you built it with a broken
makepkg, the manpage directories are all moved back to /usr/man :P
12-24-2007, 01:20 AM
bash 3.2.0330-1 and filesystem 2007.11-4
> Potential issue: Apparently /etc/profile is not replaced if modified.
> Can someone verify if this is fixed or not? I will investigate further
> as I fear it may be a pacman bug - if so, I'm guessing keeping
> etc/profile in BOTH backup arrays for the time being may fix this.
I can verify that this wasn't fixed on my update. My /etc/profile was
still my original one and I ended up extracting the etc/profile from the
filesystem package by hand.