Re: man_MANS install locations

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

Karl Berry wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
>     As for GNU/Linux, what was the rationale to only permit [0-9ln]?
>
> No idea. Maybe just didn't think about "m", or maybe it didn't exist at
> that time? Jim, Paul, anyone?
>
>     Should automake be relaxed? 
>
> I see no harm in allowing more (any) letters, if that's what you mean.
>
>     When running automake on Solaris, placing svcadm.1m into man1 rather
>     than man1m seems outright wrong.
>
> But is Automake's purpose to reproduce platform-specific behavior, or to
> have consistent behavior across platforms?  I think the latter.
>   

This would be adapting to platform-specific requirements.  I suspect 
that Solaris man(1) will not look for svcadm.1m in man1 at all but only 
in man1m.

> I guess a new option to install *.1m in man1m/, etc., would be ok, if
> you want it. If you or anyone can provide a patch, that would be
> great. Unfortunately I doubt it's anything I will ever implement myself.
>   

Maybe the best answer is to install into an existing directory if one is 
found and otherwise trim the suffix to the "standard" set?

>     Should the rpmlint check be adjusted to cater to the GNU FHS?
>
> I guess that's a question for the rpmlint people, whoever they are.
> I don't see that Automake's default behavior is going to change.
>
> Also, GNU (as an organization) never had anything to do with the FHS,
> so far as I know. I don't think the GNU coding standards/maintainer
> information have anything to say about this topic ...
>   

I seem to remember reading somewhere that /usr is supposed to be a 
symlink to / on the GNU system, so no, GNU is not intended to follow FHS.


-- Jacob