On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Sean Channel wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Jim Kingdon wrote: > > ]As people who were in New York will recall, we (very) briefly > ]discussed the subject of /usr/share/man on Friday. I asked Cristian > ]about this today; he said that he had no desire to switch from > ]/usr/man to /usr/share/man (if I understood him correctly the > ]rationale was that Unix has used /usr/man since time immemorial and > ]although there is a certain logic to /usr/share/man there isn't a > ]compelling reason to switch). > > I more often see /usr/man as a symbolic link to /usr/share/man > for backward compatability. I've also noticed more and more > applications using /usr/share for common files. Personally, > I would vote for /usr/share/man, but I don't think it matters > much.
We have gone to a lot of trouble to make the change from /usr/man to /usr/share/man because we agree with this move. We do believe that the symbolic link from /usr/man to /usr/share/man is a necessity for backwards compatibility. I hope that this issue can be resolved in favour of the /usr/share/man decision but at the end of the day this is not a major issue. - John H Terpstra > > -s > > ] > ](feel free to forward this message to fhs-discuss if desired). > ] > ] > ]-- > ] > ]To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ]with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
