autoconf
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fine-grained install control


From: Robert Lowe
Subject: Re: Fine-grained install control
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 13:33:15 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)

Keith MARSHALL wrote:

Hi Keith!

Robert Lowe wrote:
[Re: setting an appropriate man page installation path]
Or a warning that without it, manpages will not be installed
and then prevent them from being put in the wrong place?

If you are installing with /usr/local/<package> as ${prefix},
then your binaries go in /usr/local/<package>/bin, and, unless
you make it otherwise, configure generated with autoconf <= 2.59
will put man pages /usr/local/<package>/man/...; (it seems that
autoconf 2.60 will change this to /usr/local/<package>/share/man).

Except in this case it a plugin package, and the binaries go
into /usr/local/<package>/libexec, where they are used by the
package binary running as a daemon, i.e. no user interaction
with the package.  The plugins can be run separately from the
command line, but then it's up to the user to massage PATH, if
at all.  Make sense?  Sorry for being difficult!  ;-)

Does the placement of binaries in /usr/local/<package>/bin require
the user to add this to his PATH?  If so, man should then search
automatically in /usr/local/<package>/man, (at least the version
I've just ported to MinGW will).  I'm not sure if it will also
search /usr/local/<package>/share/man, (and in any case, that
just looks plain wrong to me -- surely it should be written such
that it becomes /usr/local/share/<package>/man), but if the FSF
are moving these particular goalposts, then perhaps man should
be adapted to suit.

Do you know if this is the case on Linux, for example?  The manpage
just points to /etc/man.config if neither MANPATH or -M <pathlist>
is set, which sets a defined set of places to search.

With this automatic MANPATH configuration, is it really so wrong
to install your man pages in /usr/local/<package>/man?

Without a PATH requirement, I may be out of luck.  In fact, I've
always wondered why the package itself (large) did not include
manpages of any kind.  This could be the reason.  Perhaps someone
will come up with a way to offer better control.

-Robert




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]