Re: [Groff] wrong install path of man and info files

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 21:00, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > So far, the man pages are installed into ${prefix}/man.  This copies
> > the corresponding files to /usr/local/man or /usr/man.  According to
> > the FHS
AFAICT, this claim is wrong and a mis-interpretation of the FHS:

The FHS mandates /usr/share/man for prefix=/usr:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRSHAREMANMANUALPAGES

/usr/local/share's role however is unclear:
* FHS-2.2 mentions /usr/local/man, but does not mention
/usr/local/share/man, and stays (probably intentionally) unclear about 
/usr/share. [http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.9.html]

* FHS-2.3 says /usr/local/share/man and /usr/local/man shall be symlinks
to the same directory.
[http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALSHARE1]

The GNU-Standards have recommended /usr/local/man for prefix=/usr/local.
[http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_chapter/make_14.html#SEC130]

Bleeding edge versions of the GNU-Standards mention (but do not mandate)
/usr/local/share/man [http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_54.html#SEC54]
I don't know who is responsible for this change.

All in all, my understanding is: /usr/local/man and /usr/local/info both
do conform to the GNU-Standards and the FHS.

> > and common usage,
IMO, a *very* arguable claim. It's true, some Linux vendors have it, but
I don't think /usr/local/share is "common usage" outside of the Linux
world.

Technically, I for one consider /usr/local/share to be very questionable
in general, because, traditionally, "/usr/local" is a "machine-local"
file system, which is not supposed to be network-mountable.
The motivation to introduce "/usr/share" was "making certain types of
files accessible  to machines of different architectures in a
heterogenious network.

> > this should be /usr/share/man or
> > /usr/local/share/man.

> >  The same happens to the info file.
> >
> > To correct this, the `configure' file in the top source directory
> > must be changed.
> 
> I'm *very* reluctant to do this.

So am I. In general, autoconf follows the GNU-Standards, while the "FHS"
is  just some "arbitrary vendor's  convention" outside of autoconf's
responsibility. If the GNU-Standards *mandate* PREFIX/share/man and
PREFIX/share/info, autoconf should be changed. If not, I don't see any
need to change autoconf.

Ralf