manpath change for ports ?

[Anton Yuzhaninov]

On 03/06/17 18:56, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> I think we should add /usr/local/share/man in the manpath along with at first
> and maybe instead of in long term.
>
> The reason is:
> - /usr/local/share/man seems more consistent to me with base which have:
>   /usr/share/man
> - It will remove lots of patches from the ports tree where were we need to patch
>   upstream build system to install in a non usual path.

1. During transition period having two trees for man pages - 
/usr/local/share/man and /usr/share/man will be additional headache.

2. When /usr/local/man will be removed some ports should be patched to 
use /usr/local/share/man instead /usr/local/man and we almost back to 
square one (with fewer ports to patch).

3. Patching man path is trivial comparing other challenges during 
porting software to FreeBSD. For me current situation with man path is 
not a big issue.

4. Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard has

/usr/share/man
but
/usr/local/man

Given all above I don't think this change is worth benefits it will have.

Also when/if you will add /usr/local/share/man, please submit patch to 
cmake:
https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/blob/master/Modules/GNUInstallDirs.cmake#L273
Currently cmake defines CMAKE_INSTALL_MANDIR to $PREFIX/man on FreeBSD.