On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:55:53PM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > >>> "Josef" == Josef Spillner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Josef> What is the right way to install man pages with > Josef> languages different from C (default)? > Josef> [...] > Josef> Back in December 2000, someone complained that foo.xx.1 > Josef> was installed as xx/man1/foo.1 instead of > Josef> man1/foo.xx.1. So I guess extracting the language code > Josef> from the name (it could also be foo.1.xx) will be a > Josef> hairy task, > > Is there a consensus about how to name these files? > The first message in PR/335 mentions `pt_BR-parted.8'.
If there isn't a convention, i.e. if this community gets to invent one, *please* consider making it an extra subdirectory level instead of a filename component, as in Josef's "xx/man1/foo.1". Put it that way, too, not "man1/xx/foo.1". Advantages: - It capitalizes on the existing MANPATH mechanism. People can put the appropriate directories in their MANPATH, e.g.: MANPATH=/usr/share/man/fr:/usr/share/man/en for someone bilingual in those languages, and they won't get all the other languages (or MANPATH=/usr/share/man/en:/usr/share/man/fr for someone who's basically anglophone but reads French a bit better than I do :-) and so might be able to dope out a French man page if necessary) - It makes the directory listings a lot easier to read; one doesn't have to filter out all of (what is to them) the noise Disadvantage: - It breaks makewhatis But using filename components -- "foo.xx.1" -- breaks the main "man" functionality, or else requires users to type "man foo.fr" or "man foo.en". So neither way works without some retrofitting. -- | | /\ |-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | / [...] despite reports to the contrary, it is the rare programmer who permanently loses his sanity while coding ("permanently" being the operative word). - Eric E. Allen