On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | No, %{_mandir} is just fine since /usr/lib/rpm/i386-linux/macros define
> | _mandir as /usr/share/man just as /etc/man.conf does.
>
> No single manpath is defined in man.conf[ig]...
>
True, but the most important one in /etc/man.config (man.conf on *BSD) is:
MANPATH /usr/share/man
which corresponds to /usr/lib/rpm/i386-linux/macros
%_mandir %{_prefix}/share/man
The old path /usr/man is still there because of the old packages that
want to install there. That's where LyX man pages were going before I
made that RPM.
> | It seems to be a standard now since my old computer runs OpenBSD 2.9 and
> | it has man pages in /usr/share/man too.
>
> but configure --mandir=%{_mandir} has to be used, it does not work
> without.
>
> --
> Lgb
Quite true. The reason is that Linux distros have completely mixed up
operating system and applications. On a traditional UNIX system, only OS
binaries go into /usr/bin and their man pages in /usr/{share/}man, while
applications go into /usr/local/bin and their man pages into
/usr/local/man. Hence, autoconf default is ${prefix}/bin and
${prefix}/man. That's how things work on a say *BSD and as far as I know
Slackware.
On a Linux distro (e.g. Red Hat) autoconf defaults are still the same,
but /usr/local is empty and thus we have to instruct configure that
mandir position had changed. Rather unfortunate.
Best regards,
--
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
