[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Naive Queston About nmh Man Pages

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Naive Queston About nmh Man Pages
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:53:28 -0400

>I  did
>         configure
>         make
>         make check
>         make install
>Therefore, accepting all the defaults.
>Than I did  'man scan' and got  'No manual entry for scan'.

Ah, okay, ... I misunderstood you because you mentioned a link in 'etc'
and I didn't understand why you would put a link in there.

David Levine already gave you an answer, but let me expand on it a bit.

Keeping with historical practice, nmh uses /usr/local/nmh as the default
installation prefix (the default installation prefix for Autoconf is
just /usr/local).  Everything gets installed underneath that using
default GNU pathnames, so (for example) man pages end up getting
installed in $(prefix)/share/man, which means that man pages by default
end up in /usr/local/nmh/share/man.  AFAICT it's been that way since the
Autoconf-ization of nmh (which goes back to 1998).

I am reluctant to change this or add a new symlink as that would mess
up the reasonably standardized directory structure that currently exists,
and it's easy to solve - either adjust your man search path (via MANPATH
or a man configuration file) or change the man page location via the
--mandir configure option.

It does bring to my mind to ask why we're still using /usr/local/nmh;
AFACT when nmh is installed via packaging systems they install all of
the commands in the regular directories and not a special nmh directory.
But I don't have strong feelings either way, so unless others are itching
to change it probably /usr/local/nmh will stay the default.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]