Steps to reproduce: 1. mkdir -p /usr/share/doc/html 2. DOC_SYMLINKS_DIR=/usr/share/doc/html emerge -1 =dev-lang/R 3. firefox file:///usr/share/doc/html/dev-lang/R/index.html 4. select any manual, e.g. "An Introduction to R" Expected behaviour: Page file:///usr/share/doc/R-2.9.0/manual/R-intro.html displayed, either under this address, or even better, under a symlinked address that doesn't involve the version number and is thus better suited as a bookmark. Actual behaviour: URL file:///usr/share/doc/html/dev-lang/manual/R-intro.html attempted which does not refer to any existing file. I believe that in order to fix this, you should symlink the manual directory into the html directory, and rewrite index.html and search/SearchEngine.html to refer to manual instead of ../manual. A simple sed can do this.
Hi, I'm not so sure we want to do this yet. DOC_SYMLINKS_DIR is not official as far as I know, and not supported by all package managers.
(In reply to comment #1) > DOC_SYMLINKS_DIR is not official as far as I know The make.conf(5) man page does document it on my system. The file comes from sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc33. No experimental warning around. Seems official to me. > and not supported by all package managers. So what? If there is at least one package manager supporting it, and if the change doesn't break anything for users not using the feature, then this seems reason enough to implement it.
> > DOC_SYMLINKS_DIR is not official as far as I know > > The make.conf(5) man page does document it on my system. The file comes from > sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc33. No experimental warning around. Seems official to > me. make.conf is official for portage only. I don't particularly like this way of handling the docs anyway, since you will have to patch all the packages which install docs similarly to R, and it's not compatible with upstream. So unless it's official (such as in PMS), I don't see a reason to work on it. > > and not supported by all package managers. > > So what? If there is at least one package manager supporting it, and if the > change doesn't break anything for users not using the feature, then this seems > reason enough to implement it. Please provide a patch if you think it's worth it. I'd be happy to apply it.
Created attachment 198098 [details, diff] Adjust links using sed and a symlink (In reply to comment #3) > Please provide a patch if you think it's worth it. I'd be happy to apply it. Here you go. Works for me, shouldn't break anything.
In cvs. Thanks!
