Re: [Groff] wrong install path of man and info files

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Technically, I for one consider /usr/local/share to be very
> questionable in general, because, traditionally, "/usr/local" is a
> "machine-local" file system, which is not supposed to be
> network-mountable.  The motivation to introduce "/usr/share" was
> "making certain types of files accessible to machines of different
> architectures in a heterogenious network.

Whatever the reason for using /usr/local is, it is natural IMHO to
give it the same structure of /usr.  We already have
/usr/local/include and /usr/local/lib as pendants to /usr/include and
/usr/lib, so why not /usr/local/share/...?  I can't think of any good
reason (except backwards compatibility) to make a difference.

> [...] the "FHS" is just some "arbitrary vendor's convention" [...]

I think you are greatly exaggerating, aren't you?

> If the GNU-Standards *mandate* PREFIX/share/man and
> PREFIX/share/info, autoconf should be changed.  If not, I don't see
> any need to change autoconf.

As Paul Eggert notes in another mail, it seems that autoconf will fix
this soon.


    Werner