autoconf mandir patch
Hi, when I updated autoconf to 2.60 some weeks ago, Matt noticed that it broke grub (in grub's Pkgfile, we regenerate configure because we need to patch configure.in). With autoconf 2.60, the default mandir changed from /usr/man to /usr/share/man. We decided to patch autoconf to revert this change, but I don't think this is a good idea anymore. This issue is non-critical, and I'd like to avoid having a different autotools environment than on any other distro. We'll have to add "--mandir=/usr/man" to more configure lines in the next few months anyway, while projects update autoconf to 2.60, so it doesn't really matter if we add it to the Pkgfiles where we call autoconf ourselves. Comments? Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Tilman Sauerbeck wrote: [...]
We decided to patch autoconf to revert this change, but I don't think this is a good idea anymore.
This issue is non-critical, and I'd like to avoid having a different autotools environment than on any other distro.
We'll have to add "--mandir=/usr/man" to more configure lines in the next few months anyway, while projects update autoconf to 2.60, so it doesn't really matter if we add it to the Pkgfiles where we call autoconf ourselves.
Comments?
I agree. Didn't like the patch much but figured it would be ok temporarily. Matt
Matt Housh [2006-08-20 18:44]:
Tilman Sauerbeck wrote: [...]
We decided to patch autoconf to revert this change, but I don't think this is a good idea anymore.
This issue is non-critical, and I'd like to avoid having a different autotools environment than on any other distro.
We'll have to add "--mandir=/usr/man" to more configure lines in the next few months anyway, while projects update autoconf to 2.60, so it doesn't really matter if we add it to the Pkgfiles where we call autoconf ourselves.
Comments?
I agree. Didn't like the patch much but figured it would be ok temporarily.
It's done. Let me know in case I managed to break something with this commit ;) Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 14:15 +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
With autoconf 2.60, the default mandir changed from /usr/man to /usr/share/man.
We decided to patch autoconf to revert this change, but I don't think this is a good idea anymore.
This issue is non-critical, and I'd like to avoid having a different autotools environment than on any other distro.
FWIW, I completely agree. Changing the behaviour of packages that are meant to produce distributable scripts is a no-go :)
We'll have to add "--mandir=/usr/man" to more configure lines in the next few months anyway, while projects update autoconf to 2.60, so it doesn't really matter if we add it to the Pkgfiles where we call autoconf ourselves.
Perhaps it should be considered to just adopt the FHS and use /usr/share/man. My personal concern about doing this (till now) has been all the damned --mandir=/usr/share/man it would take, plus patch/sed'ing some static Makefiles. I do like the fact that /usr/man is shorter, and think the FHS argument for moving it to datadir is pretty useless in a time where people use software "packages" where binaries and man-pages are bundled together. Nonetheless, it's what everybody else is doing, so it's going to require less hacks in the long run - especially now when it's the autoconf default.
Hi, On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 13:29:02 +0200, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 14:15 +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote: [...]
We'll have to add "--mandir=/usr/man" to more configure lines in the next few months anyway, while projects update autoconf to 2.60, so it doesn't really matter if we add it to the Pkgfiles where we call autoconf ourselves.
Perhaps it should be considered to just adopt the FHS and use /usr/share/man. My personal concern about doing this (till now) has been all the damned --mandir=/usr/share/man it would take, plus patch/sed'ing some static Makefiles. While I prefer /usr/man over /usr/share/man, I hardly ever access the man pages directly (i.e. using their absolute path), so the extra effort to move man pages around might not really be worth it.
However, there are a couple of packages which don't use autotools, so if we want a single location for man pages (which seems the only viable goal to me) we'll have to adjust some packages either way. Evaluation using http://jw.tks6.net/files/crux/check_man.sh: $ sh check_man.sh /usr/ports/{core,opt,contrib} 2> /dev/null -- /usr/ports/core man with configure: 64 man without configure: 26 -- /usr/ports/opt man with configure: 230 man without configure: 88 -- /usr/ports/contrib man with configure: 158 man without configure: 111 What these numbers don't tell is that for autotools, it's the same change for every Pkgfile, while every non-autotools package is a potential special case, although we might be able to convince some upstream authors to let their packages default to /usr/share/man in the future, pointing at the LFS. Regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 10:21 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 13:29:02 +0200, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 14:15 +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote: [...]
We'll have to add "--mandir=/usr/man" to more configure lines in the next few months anyway, while projects update autoconf to 2.60, so it doesn't really matter if we add it to the Pkgfiles where we call autoconf ourselves.
Perhaps it should be considered to just adopt the FHS and use /usr/share/man. My personal concern about doing this (till now) has been all the damned --mandir=/usr/share/man it would take, plus patch/sed'ing some static Makefiles. While I prefer /usr/man over /usr/share/man, I hardly ever access the man pages directly (i.e. using their absolute path), so the extra effort to move man pages around might not really be worth it.
Neither do I, but they do account for a large number of bytes in the footprints and /var/lib/pkg/db. Only using a single directory is The Right Thing[tm], the question is which.
However, there are a couple of packages which don't use autotools, so if we want a single location for man pages (which seems the only viable goal to me) we'll have to adjust some packages either way.
I thought /usr/man was already *the* mandir on CRUX. At least I've always moved them in there for my ports.
Evaluation using http://jw.tks6.net/files/crux/check_man.sh: $ sh check_man.sh /usr/ports/{core,opt,contrib} 2> /dev/null -- /usr/ports/core man with configure: 64 man without configure: 26 -- /usr/ports/opt man with configure: 230 man without configure: 88 -- /usr/ports/contrib man with configure: 158 man without configure: 111
What these numbers don't tell is that for autotools, it's the same change for every Pkgfile, while every non-autotools package is a potential special case, although we might be able to convince some upstream authors to let their packages default to /usr/share/man in the future, pointing at the LFS.
Most other distributions are doing that already. Since they're likely to gradually succeed, we're probably better off just doing that too, as it means less work/derivation in the long run.
Hi, On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 21:13:43 +0200, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 10:21 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote: [...]
However, there are a couple of packages which don't use autotools, so if we want a single location for man pages (which seems the only viable goal to me) we'll have to adjust some packages either way.
I thought /usr/man was already *the* mandir on CRUX. At least I've always moved them in there for my ports.
Yeah sure, this should have read "[...] so if we want the future single location for man pages to be /usr/share/man...". Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch
* Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@crux.nu> schrieb: Hi,
With autoconf 2.60, the default mandir changed from /usr/man to /usr/share/man.
I can't believe, autoconf's now doing something right by itself ;-P IMHO, manpages really should belong to /usr/share/man, according to FHS, since manpages are in fact arch-independent data, exactly what /usr/share is for. You can put a link at /usr/man for backwards compatibility. <snip>
We'll have to add "--mandir=/usr/man" to more configure lines in the next few months anyway, while projects update autoconf to 2.60, so it doesn't really matter if we add it to the Pkgfiles where we call autoconf ourselves.
Exactly that's the right way. BTW: you should do this with all reloc paramters. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (5)
-
Enrico Weigelt -
Johannes Winkelmann -
Mark Rosenstand -
Matt Housh -
Tilman Sauerbeck