Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:47:31 -0800 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: scratch65535@att.net Cc: freebsd-ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: manpath change for ports ? Message-ID: <CAN6yY1uLqhs9aAR2CHXcRTS25mPGJaXq6bwDJwq7_7e2rXZ4QQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <gko0ccl0sshis6daqm96mlpdrqc4hsu8r6@4ax.com> References: <20170306235610.cmpxk27jhoafel6l@ivaldir.net> <gko0ccl0sshis6daqm96mlpdrqc4hsu8r6@4ax.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:35 PM, <scratch65535@att.net> wrote: > 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. > Wait a second! I don't think Bapt or anyone else was suggesting that ports install in any part of the tree other than /usr/local. Tr-read what he said. The discussion is whether to move from /usr/local/man to /usr/local/share/man as well as other directories that normally in /usr/[share|info||libexe] under Linux systems. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1uLqhs9aAR2CHXcRTS25mPGJaXq6bwDJwq7_7e2rXZ4QQ>