Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:35:14 -0500 From: <scratch65535@att.net> To: freebsd-ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: manpath change for ports ? Message-ID: <gko0ccl0sshis6daqm96mlpdrqc4hsu8r6@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <20170306235610.cmpxk27jhoafel6l@ivaldir.net> References: <20170306235610.cmpxk27jhoafel6l@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 00:56:10 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >Hi all, > >I would like to propose a change in the localbase hier for ports > >I think we should add /usr/local/share/man in the manpath along with at first >and maybe instead of in long term. > >The reason is: >- /usr/local/share/man seems more consistent to me with base which have: > /usr/share/man >- It will remove lots of patches from the ports tree where were we need to patch > upstream build system to install in a non usual path. > >My proposal is to add to the manpath /usr/local/share/man in default man(1) >command in FreeBSD 12 (MFCed to 11-STABLE) > >and either provide an errata for 11.0/10.3 or a >/usr/local/etc/man.d/something.conf via a port or something like that for those >two, what do you think? > >For the same reason I would like to allow porters to stop patching (with pathfix >or anything else) the path for pkgconfig files and allow >/usr/local/lib/pkgconfig along with the current >/usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig:/usr/libdata/pkgconfig > >Which will also remove tons of hacks from the ports tree. > >What do you think? > >Best regards, >Bapt I would argue that the same principle should be followed with *everything*: if it's at or applies to the application level, it should be in /usr/local/, no exceptions. And if that conflicts with the native product documentation (e.g. MySQL, MariaDB), the local mods should be right up at the top of the relevant man page, not on some special web site or in some special documentation hiding in the weeds somewhere. Nobody should have to chase down necessary information; if the man pages are the canonical documentation, then all the facts should be on the man page. And if something is not at the application level, then perhaps this is the right time and place to have a conversation about whether there should be a separate subtree for the layer between the apps and the kernel, too. The desire for long-term stability, predictability, and freedom from bugs is not a joke or a wish for a pony. It's a basic sine-qua-non necessity for production-quality software, especially servers. Would splitting off the middle layer from the kernel help or hinder that goal? The question must be worth a conversation, and the sooner the better.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?gko0ccl0sshis6daqm96mlpdrqc4hsu8r6>