On 12/28/2013 04:35 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Armin K. <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 12/27/2013 06:26 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> >>> OK. For trunk, I really don't see a problem keeping the symlinks for >>> convenience. >>> >>> -- Bruce >> >> I'm strict to following standards when it comes to them, so that's why I >> am doing (unnecessary) modifications :P >> >> > > I consider the /usr/man to /usr/share/man to be a compatibility > symlink from an old location to a new location. But I would prefer to > see packages target the preferred locations (where it makes sense > [simple, and can possibly be submitted upsteam]) instead of working > because we have the symlink in place. > > (Just adding my $0.02, I've lived with /usr/info and /usr/man for the > last decade. I suppose I can live with it a little longer) >
My long term idea is to get rid of the symlinks entirely. More than 90% of BLFS installs info and manual pages to correct locations, and every package that can utilize modern autotools or cmake already installs info and man pages at the correct location. I am closing on remaining few packages which haven't been updated in years (like current bc, which has been released in 2006) and applying overrides to them. So far I'm 100% sure that chapters 22-37 require no overrides and all packages there install manual pages to correct locations. chapters 45 and 46 do require some minor corrections and I'll submit them when I finish building more packages. I have not checked all packges from other chapters, but I have checked more than 70% of them and I remember finding only few (less than 5 I believe) which install manual and/or info pages to the "wrong" location. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
