xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS on SuSE7.1

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, Johannes Eriksson <joheriks@xxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS on SuSE7.1
From: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 10:26:11 -0500
In-reply-to: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sgi.com> "Re: XFS on SuSE7.1" (May 5, 2:27pm)
References: <3AF3BF07.5C0E03CB@wipro.co.in> <3AF41C77.D1A23AA9@sgi.com> <20010505200401.A16626@infa.abo.fi> <3AF43774.62270B72@sgi.com> <3AF45406.BFB1F78C@sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
hi,

On May 5,  2:27pm, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Subject: Re: XFS on SuSE7.1
> Ah, I see now that it's probably a result of building the userspace
> packages on an older system - the man location is set during "configure"
> so if it's in /usr/man rather than /usr/share/man, that's probably a
> result of building on a non-FHS 2.0 compliant system.
> 
> Still, next spin, we can clean that up.
> 
> Thanks for pointing it out!
> 

I'm not sure there's too much we can change in our rpms,
since we want these to work on "older" systems too (ie.
systems which use /usr/man and do not have /usr/share/man
on the default man search path).

What I might do though is change the default location to
install to.  Currently, if we cannot make an educated guess
as to the correct location, we fall back to /usr/doc (this
is whats biting the Mandrake folk, I'll bet).  Instead, it
seems like guessing at /usr/share/man is the right thing to
do, with so many distros starting to follow the fhs now.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>