Stephan A Suerken schrieb am Freitag, den 29. Oktober 1999:
> > Policy 3.* conforms to FHS 2, which says:
> >
> > Manual pages for commands and data under /usr/local are stored in
> > /usr/local/man. Manual pages for X11R6 are stored in /usr/X11R6/man.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yep, which is how I actually packaged it. Maybe the 1st sentence in
> section 6.1 of the policy is a little bit too strictly formulated...
You're right. Maybe we should add a notice about /usr/X11R6/man to
this sentence. Feel free to write a policy change proposal...
> 1st, there seem to be a lot of programs in /usr/bin that are actually
> programs using the "X Windows System":
>
> $ orlok: /mnt/debian-unstable/usr/bin
> $ absurd? find . -type f -exec /tmp/checkx11 {} \; 2>/dev/null | wc -l
> 105
The problem here seems to be, that some people want to place all X
dependent programs under /usr/X11R6 while others mean that only the
X11 core should be under /usr/X11R6 and a third group wants to get rid
of /usr/X11R6 which does not really fit into the remaining file system
structure...
So at least programs, which _can_ work without X11 (like timidity) are
placed under /usr/bin...
> 2nd, if /usr/X11R6/man is used (instead of, for example,
> /usr/share/X11R6/man), this implies to me that manual pages for X
> programs are not shareable among (same versions of) the same OS.
> Why should this be the case? I could not really find an explanation for
> this in the FHS.
As far as I can see /usr/X11R6 isn't no logical directory, but a
historical one. It was there on all other Unix systems, so we keep
using it (which makes porting software easier, because upstream
sources will normally use /usr/X11R6, too). Don't ask me whether
there isn't a /usr/X11R6/share or something like this, I fear this is
based on historical reasons, too. But you should discuss this with
the FHS folks on the FHS mailinglists...
Tschoeeee
Roland
--
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.spinnaker.de/ *
