Re: bin/60049: apm manpages and RC script installed everywhere

["jacob.pipkin%icloud.com@localhost via gnats" <gnats-admin%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/60049; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: jacob.pipkin%icloud.com@localhost
To: gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/60049: apm manpages and RC script installed everywhere
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 14:36:02 -0600

 On Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:40:01 PM CST Valery Ushakov via gnats wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR bin/60049; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Valery Ushakov <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Cc:
 > Subject: Re: bin/60049: apm manpages and RC script installed everywhere
 > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:35:16 +0300
 > 
 >  On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 13:55:01 +0000, jacob.pipkin%icloud.com@localhost via gnats 
 wrote:
 >  >  On Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:50:01 AM CST Valery Ushakov via gnats wrote:
 >  >  >  so if you want to get rid of /usr/share/man/man8/apmd.8 you will need
 >  >  >  to move it to /usr/share/man/man8/{foo,bar,...}/apmd.8 which just
 >  >  >  adds
 >  >  >  churn.
 >  >  
 >  >  It's already in /usr/share/man/man8/i386:
 >  It _was_.
 > 
 >  >  $ grep apmd.8 distrib/sets/lists/man/mi
 >  >  ./usr/share/man/man8/apmd.8                     man-sysutil-man        
 >  >  .man ./usr/share/man/man8/i386/apmd.8                man-obsolete
 >  >  obsolete
 >  >  
 >  >  You're saying that it would also be necessary to have it in dedicated
 >  >  subdirectories for arm, hpcsh, macppc, and sparc?
 > 
 >  The established practice is to install all port-specific subdirs.  I'm
 >  pretty sure the reason it was moved out of i386 was exactly to avoid
 >  that duplication.  You are now effectively proposing to undo that
 >  change.
 > 
 >  >  What purpose do these port-specific directories serve that is not
 >  >  served by simply delivering the items in question to the ports
 >  >  where they are relevant and not delivering them to the ports where
 >  >  they should not exist?
 > 
 >  syspkgs never really landed so I'd day we are mostly chill about an
 >  extra file or two that might not be strictly speaking necessary on a
 >  given system.  Any churn that solves one particular instance, but
 >  doesn't address the problem is general is worse, IMO.
 > 
 > 
 >  -uwe
 
 Thank you for clarifying and explaining.
 I believe this PR should be closed.
 
 Thanks.
 Jacob