DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=OW5Ep1w5eTatlf2W
	DallH/vcPVhA+0ujf3si7Z7xM286Qq0oRbxFl4GHHmh8vtIWUU7ml/Q9XZV7mwom
	5FWFEdId24b+UBz/sAOICp/p6Qp92LJ4aXzSai31zroXr+8hCtr0xVePQuKOC0rL
	oLu4AD1rr/wso/pnraYa+sWerbE=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-id: <5374FDCA.2020700@cygwin.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:47:54 -0400
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Does /etc/profile need to set MANPATH?
References: <53726A51 DOT 3010105 AT breisch DOT org> <20140513192457 DOT GY2436 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <8738gc4810 DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <20140515074942 DOT GK2436 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5374BCE5 DOT 7080609 AT breisch DOT org> <5374BE7D DOT 70104 AT breisch DOT org> <20140515133939 DOT GQ2436 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-reply-to: <20140515133939.GQ2436@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 05/15/2014 09:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 15 09:17, Chris J. Breisch wrote:
>> Chris J. Breisch wrote:
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On May 14 18:52, Achim Gratz wrote:
>>>>> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>>>>>> Yes, this might be better discussed in cygwin-apps. I guess the setting
>>>>>> of MANPATH is mainly historical.
>>>>> I'd be happy to not set MANPATH in /etc/profile if we no longer need it
>>>>> for the standard installation.
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if setting MANPATH was really ever required for the old
>>>> man either. In a tcsh environment, MANPATH is not set by default.
>>>> If you install the openssl package, MANPATH is set like this (in
>>>> /etc/profile.d/openssh.csh):
>>>>
>>>> if ( ! $?MANPATH ) setenv MANPATH ""
>>>> setenv MANPATH "${MANPATH}:/usr/ssl/man"
>>>>
>>>> which results in:
>>>>
>>>> $ echo $MANPATH
>>>> :/usr/ssl/man
>>>>
>>>> I have neither problems to see the man pages in the default paths nor
>>>> problems to see the openssl man pages.
>>>
>>> Well, /etc/profile and /etc/profile.d/openssh.sh add a few more folders
>>> to MANPATH in bash. If your man pages are working, then we probably
>>> don't need MANPATH.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing though that if you unset MANPATH, you can't see the man
>>> pages in /usr/ssl/man. The new man from man-db doesn't find them either,
>>> however.
>>>
>>> But I think the proper solution to that is to add the appropriate lines
>>> to man_db.conf rather than to force something into MANPATH. OTOH, we
>>> already have the openssh.[c]sh files working, so maybe it's easier to
>>> continue with that, rather than modifying the OpenSSL package to update
>>> man_db.conf.
>>>
>>
>> Or I could just add the values to man_db.conf, regardless of whether OpenSSL
>> is installed. It's not going to hurt anything to have them there.
>
> You still have to be able to handle MANPATH.  Unfortunately the man page
> of man-db is a little tight-lipped on how MANPATH is handled exactly,
> other than that "its value is used as the path to search  for manual
> pages."
>
> Whatever man does with MANPATH, it doesn't drop the default man paths,
> apparently.
>
> [...time passes...]
>
> Hmm.  Interesting enough, the current /etc/man.conf already contains
> /usr/ssl/man.  How long is it doing that already?  If I had known that,
> I'd removed the /etc/profile.d/openssl.* files long ago :|

I'm not sure exactly but a quick look in the Cygwin email archives shows
a reference from 2005 with it.  We were very forward-thinking back then. ;-)

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple