On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 07:01:36PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Stuart, > > Stuart Cassoff wrote on Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 08:30:36AM -0400: > > > I sometimes wonder if /usr/local/share/doc/tcl8.6/man/ > > would be a better place. > > That question is part of a bigger picture: logical organization of > manual pages and representating that organization in the file system, > on the command line, and in URIs. > > The corpus of all manual pages can be organized on the following > levels: > > * Operating system, e.g. OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, ... > File system representation: Not needed because on a local > machine, you have only one system installed. > (Uh oh, but we do have the books/man-pages-posix port > using /usr/local/share/doc/posix/man/ > but lacking the @mandir annotation.) > Command line representation: Not needed for the same reason. > But note that Eaton man (ca. 1991-1993) and hence the ancient > man-1.6 still used by some Linux systems and the more modern > man-db used by some other Linux systems do have a command > line option to display pages for a foreign operating system > and abuse the -m option for it, even though -m was already > used earlier in 4.3BSD-Reno (1990) in the modern sense now > known in OpenBSD and NetBSD. > I think we should *not* introduce a command line option > for displaying foreign manual pages. > URI representation: /*system*-version/arch/name.section - > that is, using a dedicated family of manpaths. > It would still be *very cool* if we could have optional paths in man confs, just so that man would find /usr/ports/infrastructure/man if it's around, and not give errors if it's not...
Just having to add that on each ports build machine is a pain in the butt
