>--[David Morgan]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > --- Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I fully support making "docdir" a separate directory that defaults to
> > > `${prefix}/doc' -- after all, this has been reality for years. But I'd
> > > like to see this taken further: make "info" a subdirectory of "doc",
> > > make "man" a subdirectory of "doc", make "dvi" a subdirectory of
> > > "doc", make "html" a subdirectory of "doc", in short put all the
> > > documentation into "doc". The last thing I want is each documentation
> > > format claiming its own major directory in the file system.
> > I really like this idea. It's bothered me for some time but I've never
> > addressed it.
> I like the idea too but how long will my manpath be now? One for bison,
> one for flex, one for autoconf, one for ...
No! If the doc is constructed properly from the texinfo source, it will
contain the package name, so you don't need a subdirectory into
doc/(info|ps|man|dvi|html) for the package. Of course there are some
packages that prefer having a subdirectory for man (like openssl) or html
(like mutt :( ), but then you either do it your own way anyway, or use
autoconf 2.49a where one could add "just another" config macro (like
AC_DOC_SUBDIRS (man html), if you want to have seperate man and html doc
directories by default). Then you wouldn't have a longer manpath than
before.
Does that make sense?
Yours, Rüdiger.
--
http://www.ruediger-kuhlmann.de/
