From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:37:15 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <972b97fa673cbb799c3df1e0a4524408@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100325114948.GA7249@polynum.com>
References: <20100325114948.GA7249@polynum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Man pages for add-ons
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f12c0d42-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>  From namespace(4), the man pages are supposed to be under /sys/man.

the old tex put the man pages (both of them) in /sys/man/1pub.
one could just as easily put them in /sys/man/1.

> What is the canonical way for added ("opt", "pkg" ?) stuff. Letting
> the user adapt his profile to bind the added stuff he wants appearing in
> his namespace?

i hope we don't reinvent the 1000 bin directories of unix.  it's all
so cute having /bin /usr/bin /sbin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /opt/$fu/bin.
but ever so useless.  i have been on systems where the fact that
/usr/yp/bin (or whatever it was) wasn't in the default path was used
as a "security" mechanism.  but that points to the real problem.
it's just too archane an alchemy for users to remember.

i vote for putting the binaries in /$objtype/bin or /$objtype/bin/tex.
in the latter case, it would be tex/tex or tex/mf.

- erik