[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS on SuSE7.1

To: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS on SuSE7.1
From: Chmouel Boudjnah <chmouel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 14 May 2001 11:05:00 +0100
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, Johannes Eriksson <joheriks@xxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <10105071026.ZM65164@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> ("Nathan Scott"'s message of "Mon, 7 May 2001 10:26:11 -0500")
References: <3AF3BF07.5C0E03CB@wipro.co.in> <3AF41C77.D1A23AA9@sgi.com> <20010505200401.A16626@infa.abo.fi> <3AF43774.62270B72@sgi.com> <3AF45406.BFB1F78C@sgi.com> <10105071026.ZM65164@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.090003 (Oort Gnus v0.03) Emacs/21.0.102
"Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 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.

why don't you use the %{_mandir} %{_docdir} %{_infodir} macros ?

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