FHS

Friends, When upgrading some packages to AutoConf-2.52 I noticed that given --prefix=/usr, manpages go straight into /usr/man/. Hmm, but we got a filesystem hierarchy standard ! Instead of providing the developers the tools to violate this standard, could you pleas

Re: FHS

> When upgrading some packages to AutoConf-2.52 I noticed that given > --prefix=/usr, manpages go straight into /usr/man/. Hmm, but we got a > filesystem hierarchy standard ! But we've also got the GNU Coding Standards .

Re: FHS

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > When upgrading some packages to AutoConf-2.52 I noticed that given > > --prefix=/usr, manpages go straight into /usr/man/. Hmm, but we got a > > filesystem hierarchy standard ! > > But we've also got the GNU Coding Sta

Re: FHS

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > When upgrading some packages to AutoConf-2.52 I noticed that given > > --prefix=/usr, manpages go straight into /usr/man/. Hmm, but we got a > > filesystem hierarchy standard ! > > But we've also got the GNU Coding Standards >

Re: FHS

Richard B. Kreckel writes: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > When upgrading some packages to AutoConf-2.52 I noticed that given > > > --prefix=/usr, manpages go straight into /usr/man/. Hmm, but we got a > > > filesystem hierarchy standard ! > > >

Re: FHS

"Richard B. Kreckel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now four years into FHS-2.0, can we consider this a bug? Or is FHS buggy? FHS is buggy, but (as the primary engine behind the makefile standards in this area) I think it's time to give in, and move mandir and infodir into the share hierarchy.

Re: FHS

Es schrieb "Richard B. Kreckel": > > Now four years into FHS-2.0, can we consider this a bug? Or is FHS buggy? > Didn't we had a lengthy talk about it lately? Well, actually, I wrote a little macro that saves me the burden to place all the if/then/else computations into a configure script agai

Re: FHS

Guido Draheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Didn't we had a lengthy talk about it lately? So since I'm the main directories for the GNU Coding Standards, I've sent a note to RMS requesting that he alter the coding standards to change the placement of infodir and mandir to put them under datadir

Re: FHS

Es schrieb "Thomas Bushnell, BSG": > > Guido Draheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Didn't we had a lengthy talk about it lately? > > So since I'm the main directories for the GNU Coding Standards, I've > sent a note to RMS requesting that he alter the coding standards to > change the placem

Re: FHS

Except that datadir is for read-only architecture-independent data, and man pages are not architecture-independent. Granted, it is possible to reorganize the subdirs into arch-specific subdirs, but that is not presently the case. Also, different machines may have different versions of software

Re: FHS

Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Except that datadir is for read-only architecture-independent data, and man > pages are not architecture-independent. Granted, it is possible to > reorganize the subdirs into arch-specific subdirs, but that is not presently > the case. Also, different

Re: FHS

So what? There is more to software than GNU. If you are interested in promulgating GNU software in other places then it is beneficial to "play nice" with other systems where practical. If you are only interested in pure GNU systems why worry about FHS when one can use the GNU standards? Or may

Re: FHS

Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is more to software than GNU. Sure, but the GNU Coding Standards are for GNU, by definition. There are many things that are disallowed by them in the interests of making GNU better. For example, info files must all be machine independent. There