manpath change for ports ?

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:50:39AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> 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
Which I have just done :)

Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20170311/7419404d/attachment.sig>