On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 03:24:55PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > 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. > > Well then the ports infrastructure should install the manual pages. > > The man(1) command has never before automatically looked in "source > directories", which this obviously is. > > Install the ports infrastructure tools to /usr/local/man something or > other, and call it a day. > > A proposal would be that the ports infrastructure have a "Let's begin > working on ports" command sequence, which gets run when one starts, and > voila, the documentation is now installed within man's default paths. > > In /usr/local, probably. Which is port's playground. > > > Wasnt OpenBSD supposed to be about safe defaults, and for developers ? > > Non sequitur. The manual tools look in specified directories of the base. > > It looks in "build result" directories, not "src" directories. > > If I make a change to /usr/src/lib/libc/sys/open.2, man does not find > that file. It looks in INSTALLED directories, not some strange source > directory. > > Why should this directory be special? To me, everything in /usr/ports > smells like source, including the tooling.
We already have some ports related man pages in base (e.g. port-modules(5)). I agree the ports tooling should stay under ports/infrastructure. However I think the documentation should be available in base. It costs nothing really. Let's just move the shit over to src/, install it as part of the base system and be done with it. -- Antoine
