manpath change for ports ?

[John Baldwin]

On Wednesday, March 08, 2017 04:39:50 PM Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > I would like to propose a change in the localbase hier for ports
> >
> > I think we should add /usr/local/share/man in the manpath along with
> > at first and maybe instead of in long term.
> 
> 2) plus info -> share/info as suggested by jbeich
> 
> 3) plus libdata/pkgconfig -> lib/pkgconfig
> 
> These three items will ensure that "./configure --prefix=/usr/local &&
> make install" will do the right thing out of the box - by changing our
> definition of "the right thing" to match what the GNU autotools have
> been doing for at least 15 years.
> 
> 4) Remove the hardcoded library path in lang/gcc*
> 
> This makes it possible to work on software that includes both libraries
> and programs while an earlier copy of the same software is already
> installed.  With the current state of gcc, the programs you are working
> on will be linked against the version of the library that's already
> installed instead of the version you just compiled, and there is nothing
> you can do to prevent it.  You won't notice anything if all you ever do
> is "make && make install", because the new library will replace the old,
> but if you try to run your program directly from the build tree, it will
> use the wrong library.  This can be incredibly frustrating if you're not
> aware of it - imagine you're trying to fix a bug in that library and no
> matter what you do, your regression test keeps failing...

+1 on all these.  I think that ports compilers should not have
/usr/local/include or /usr/local/lib as implicit paths either as others
have stated.

I wouldn't even mind if we had both /usr/local/man and /usr/local/share/man
so long as our default MANPATH included both if that means applying fewer
patches to ports.

-- 
John Baldwin