How embarrasing!

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jan 10, 2008, at 04:08, Markus Weissmann wrote:

> On 10 Jan 2008, at 10:13, Kevin Ballard wrote:
>
>>> On Jan 8, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
>>>
>>>> Warning: violation by /opt/local/man
>>>> Warning: MacPorts violates the layout of the ports-filesystems!
>>>> Warning: Please fix or indicate this misbehavior (if it is  
>>>> intended), it will be an error in future releases!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 	Do you think it's safe to remove the ${prefix}/man symlink to $ 
>>>> {prefix}/share/man in MacPorts sources? Or do we have to bite  
>>>> the bullet and "destroot.violate_mtree yes"-justify ourselves to  
>>>> remove the warning?
>>
>> What's the purpose of the symlink? I'm surprised we even have it.
>
> When we agreed to have man pages in $prefix/share/man, we put this  
> symlink in place to automagically fix all misbehaving ports and  
> afair also because of some man search directory weirdness, where  
> man expected the man pages in $PATH[n]/../man, if I recall correctly.
> Anyway: We should definitely remove it! Most ports behave well  
> already and the rest should be found by the mtree checks.

I would say we should definitely keep the symlink, because some ports  
still misbehave and install manpages into ${prefix}/man instead of $ 
{prefix}/share/man; the symlink helps these files go to the right  
place anyway. Three ports that I currently have installed do this, as  
I see. Also, I would say that it rather points out again that the  
existence of the MacPorts port is weird. (It's weird to use MacPorts  
to install MacPorts.)