[arch-dev-public] FHS manpages (was: [signoff] iptables 1.4.0-1)
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Roman Kyrylych schrieb:
2008/2/26, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
In addition to a version bump, I changed the simple_firewall.rules file to a more generic and correct configuration.
Please sign off.
Seems to be OK here. Signoff i686.
same here.
anyone for x86_64?
Man pages are not FSH compliant. No signoff from me.
Do we have a namcap check for this yet? If not, the 'usr/man' part could be removed from directoryname.py and at least that check would then point out files in non-standard dirs. -Dan
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Dan McGee wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Roman Kyrylych schrieb:
2008/2/26, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
In addition to a version bump, I changed the simple_firewall.rules file to a more generic and correct configuration.
Please sign off.
Seems to be OK here. Signoff i686.
same here.
anyone for x86_64?
Man pages are not FSH compliant. No signoff from me.
Do we have a namcap check for this yet? If not, the 'usr/man' part could be removed from directoryname.py and at least that check would then point out files in non-standard dirs.
-Dan
I usually run tar -tzvf on the packages after building them. That way, I can see where the files will be installed. It also useful, in this case, for checking where the man pages were placed. It would be good idea to fix namcap to have usr/man listed as a non-standard dir as you said. Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
I usually run tar -tzvf on the packages after building them.
Hm - kinda off-topic, but I usually just do 'find ./pkg' or 'pacman -Qpl $pkgfile' to check that. I guess plain tar works fine too - such is the magic of a simple package format Back on-topic, I agree with Dan that namcap should look for this, since we're trying to get away from /usr/man
Dan McGee schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Roman Kyrylych schrieb:
2008/2/26, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
In addition to a version bump, I changed the simple_firewall.rules file to a more generic and correct configuration.
Please sign off.
Seems to be OK here. Signoff i686.
same here.
anyone for x86_64?
Man pages are not FSH compliant. No signoff from me.
Do we have a namcap check for this yet? If not, the 'usr/man' part could be removed from directoryname.py and at least that check would then point out files in non-standard dirs.
-Dan
In the past we had makepkg move all manpages to /usr/man (for whatever reason). Why don't we move them all to the FHS path now?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Dan McGee schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Roman Kyrylych schrieb:
2008/2/26, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote: > In addition to a version bump, I changed the simple_firewall.rules file > to a more generic and correct configuration. > > Please sign off.
Seems to be OK here. Signoff i686.
same here.
anyone for x86_64?
Man pages are not FSH compliant. No signoff from me.
Do we have a namcap check for this yet? If not, the 'usr/man' part could be removed from directoryname.py and at least that check would then point out files in non-standard dirs.
-Dan
In the past we had makepkg move all manpages to /usr/man (for whatever reason). Why don't we move them all to the FHS path now?
Because it was a hack in makepkg to move them. Regardless of where they end up, it is a hack to move things and I'd rather keep these hacks to a minimum. http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=9addd88a7d12c... -Dan
participants (4)
-
Dan McGee
-
Eric Belanger
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Travis Willard