manwhich: Deriving MANPATH from PATH [PSARC/2007/688 FastTrack timeout 12/19/2007]

[Garrett D'Amore]

Danek Duvall wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 06:01:47PM +0100, Bart Blanquart wrote:
>
>   
>> The option to make the transformations configurable could be useful  
>> for other os.o distributions that have a different layout (changing a  
>> configuration file is easier to maintain than changing something in  
>> the source tree) and, come to think of it, might this not be useful  
>> for anyone delivering executables and manpages?
>>     
>
> If they wanted to put executables and manpages in willy-nilly places, sure.
> But is there any real need to support that kind of installation?  How often
> do you envision such a situation being required, rather than just being a
> mistake in how a component is integrated?  Is ../man or ../share/man really
> going to be an issue all that often, particularly if that directory could
> be a symlink to the real one (as in Mike's /opt/VRTSvlic/bin /opt/VRTS/man
> example)?
>
> Rope is great and all, but there's no need to deliver it in pre-made
> nooses.
>
> Danek
>   

Ever install a package in ~?  It does come up...  ./configure 
--prefix=${HOME}

I suspect it comes up more often than you think.

I also know of at least one major site that uses 
/pkg/${PKG}/(bin,man,info,lib}  etc.   Right now they have the notion of 
"subscribing" to a package, which basically puts /pkg/${PKG}/bin in the 
PATH, and /pkg/${PKG}/man in the MANPATH.   It would be nicer if they 
only had to worry about PATH, and didn't have to worry about MANPATH 
being out of sync with PATH.

    -- Garrett