manpath change for ports ?

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav]

John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> writes:
> 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.

The default MANPATH is constructed dynamically from PATH:

     1.   From each component of the user's PATH for the first of:
          -   pathname/man
          -   pathname/MAN
          -   If pathname ends with /bin: pathname/../man
          Note: Special logic exists to make /bin and /usr/bin look in
          /usr/share/man for manual files.

If we change this to:

     1.   From each component of the user's PATH for the first of:
          -   pathname/man
          -   pathname/MAN
          -   If pathname ends with /bin or /sbin: pathname/../man and
              pathname/../share/man

we wouldn't need any "special logic", but I really don't like the idea
of having different ports installing man pages in different locations.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des at des.no