On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Dan McGee wrote:

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Eric Belanger wrote:

...

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:

...

Roman Kyrylych schrieb:

...

2008/2/26, Dan McGee :

...

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Bächler 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.

Dan McGee schrieb:

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Eric Belanger wrote:

...

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:

...

Roman Kyrylych schrieb:

...

2008/2/26, Dan McGee :

...

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Bächler 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?