Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:57:54 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ldconfig finding libraries, but ld is not. Message-ID: <199911112257.RAA03811@misha.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <14379.17630.340446.163663@guru.phone.net> from Mike Meyer at "Nov 11, 1999 02:36:14 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Meyer once wrote: > The bottom line is that taking the name people have standardized on > for installing *local* packages [/usr/local -mi] and installing > system-provided packages there is a bad thing(TM). The FreeBSD's point of view is, that the "system-provided packages", are the ones that are already under the /usr itself. That includes monsters like bind, amd, sendmail, perl, cc, uucp, etc. (Whether they should all be always included is a different story.) What you install using the pkg_add or build/install through the ports, ARE the *local* packages you refer to. The ports are just there to aid you. However, I believe the problem of the person starting this thread, was that the /usr/local/lib is in the cc/ld's default search path. The person demanded it be put there or he switched to Linux. Well, since /usr/local is not part of the OS, putting /usr/local/lib onto cc/ld's list is wrong, IMHO. Next, they'll want /usr/local/include on the cpp's list! And we can't allow that :-) -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911112257.RAA03811>