On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 12:33:08AM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Aaargh. I give up on FHS. I have to admit that I haven't read the FHS
> > document, and indeed, it does mention /usr/share/man specifically, and it
> > doesn't mention /usr/local/share/man.
>
> This is a bug in FHS 2.1 (the first I've heard of it). I will post a
> proposal to fix the error, either by replacing "/usr/local/man" with
> "/usr/local/share/man" or by removing the mention of /usr/local/share/man,
> so the location is implied instead of explicitly mentioned.
Do we have a consensus on what should be done? Are we happy with
/usr/local/share/man?
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
