On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 09:13:50PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Marc, > > Marc Espie wrote on Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 07:37:25PM +0200: > > > 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 > > That is relatively unrelated to what Stuart Cassoff and myself were > discussing, which was (1) ports manual pages as opposed to > infrastructure manual pages and (2) where to install them as opposed > to whether to search them by default. > > That said, the question whether to search /usr/ports/infrastructure/man/ > by default was discussed before. I was mildly in favour of it, but > there was no consensus that people wanted it, so in the end, we stopped > doing it:
I've always been in favour of it. Strongly. > Requested by deraadt@ millert@ kettenis@ who argue that people > using /usr/ports/infrastructure/bin/ already need to set PATH, > so editing man.conf (or, though more fragile, setting MANPATH) > should not be a big deal for them. This doesnt make sense: To work with ports, i never had to set PATH, i dont need to manually call tools there, as they're often called by the portstree itself. And i always curse when i run 'man dpb' on my machines and never get what i expect. Wasnt OpenBSD supposed to be about safe defaults, and for developers ?
