Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:26:35 +0100 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/local Message-ID: <382BEB5B.EDE3FFC3@scc.nl> References: <xzpyac4f3f4.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > How would people feel about adding /usr/local/include and > /usr/local/lib to gcc's default header and library search paths, > respectively? As somebody pointed out in a recent thread on -stable, > we already have /usr/local/lib in the default ldconfig_path, so why > not in the link-time search path as well? It can be dangerous. Sometimes people have headers in /usr/local/include that conflict with headers in /usr/include. If /usr/local/include is added as default search path, make world could break. The evidence can be found in spurious postings about some port breakage (rpm for example). Also, having /usr/local/lib in ldconfig_path is not really a precedent for adding /usr/local/include and /usr/local/lib to the standard compile-time search paths. We need (for example) /usr/X11R6/lib in ldconfig_path, but don't want X11 related searches baked into our compiler. If we do it, then it should be done with care. Personally, I don't think it's really necessary... -- Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/ The FreeBSD project mailto:marcel@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?382BEB5B.EDE3FFC3>