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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 00:50, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > The authority to change such defaults is the GNU-Standards
> 
> Yes, but the current version of the GNU standards
Well, I had cited it in my initial response
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_54.html#SEC54.

However, I don't know why, when and by whom this change way performed
and why none of the GNU-standards' authors not had informed the
"autoconf'ers" :(

Anyway ...

> in <http://www.gnu.org/prep/make-stds.texi> says this:
> 
>    @item mandir
>    The top-level directory for installing the man pages (if any) for this
>    package.  It will normally be @file{/usr/local/share/man}, but you
>    should write it as @file{$(datarootdir)/man}.  (If you are using
>    Autoconf, write it as @samp{@@mandir@@}.)
> 
> If this is wrong, then the GNU standards need to be fixed.

Well, IMO, the GNU-Standards are poorly formulated. They mention
/usr/local/share/man in an example, but don't contain a clear statement
on where to put man pages into.

Anyway, IMO, the paragraph above, translated into autoconf terms means: 
"let {man|info}dir default to $(datadir)/{man|info}"

This change 
* can be regarded as fixing a defect in autoconf and the GNU-Standards,
because {man|info} pages actually are "read-only
architecture-independent data".

* can be regarded as "degrading" the role of mandir and infodir to
subdirs of $(datadir), which then can be regarded as an indication of
the GNU-Standards wanting to install other types of docs into
$(datadir)/<doctype>.

It might surprise you, but I consider these points to be improvements.

However, this change shifts the questionable spots wrt.
/usr/local/share/{man|info} and <package-prefix>/share/{man|info} to
datadir, i.e. it exposes /usr/local/share to be questionable.

On the practical side, when autoconf adopts this change, it will
introduce a lot of problems:

* This change does *not* make the autoconf defaults more FHS compliant.
* This change does not make the autoconf defaults for prefix=/usr or
prefix=/ more FHS-compliant.
* This change would break the traditional package-wise installation
scheme. 

IMO, this again raises the question, if autoconf should provide dynamic
defaults (use different defaults) for prefix=/usr, prefix=/,
prefix=/usr/local and prefix=<anything else>.

Ralf