Date:	Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:44:03 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	RE: Two glitches for autoconf 2.49b
In-Reply-To:	<NEBBIOJNGMKPNOBKHCGHMEEDCAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010103104332.1129D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> So having, say, a $DJDIR/share/perl5/man directory, with the man
> files in subdirectories would mirror the layout of the
> $DJDIR/lib/perl5/ directory.

Does "make install" in the Perl distribution indeed install the man
pages in $prefix/share/perl/man/?  Or does it install them in the
standard $prefix/man/ tree?

> And since the files wouldn't be in the main
> man directory, preserving the usual man directory structure is not that
> big of an issue.

It is an issue for the way `man' is written: it looks for man pages in
each directory mentioned in MANPATH and in its first-level
subdirectories, but only if those subdirectories match man* and cat*
patterns (the actual patterns are more complex than man*, to DTRT in
various special cases).  It will not descend into deeper
subdirectories, and it will not look for foo.1 in a directory called
foobar/man/man5, say.

I'm quite sure that similar problems will happen with any other `man'
command out there.  But if there's some widely-used `man' version
which makes something like what you suggest possible, it would make
sense to add such a functionality to our clone.

I just don't think we should invent another DJGPP-specific hack, because 
these things hurt interoperability (imagine the plight of someone which
uses DJGPP, Cygwin, and some other ports routinely, or switches from
one toolset to another).

- Raw text -