From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 6 22:29:45 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E300D106566C; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 22:29:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064388FC0A; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 22:29:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id BAA09733; Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:29:43 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1SnH1z-0008wl-FI; Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:29:43 +0300 Message-ID: <4FF766D6.5040909@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:29:42 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120620 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Chisnall References: <4FF60A9E.5070503@FreeBSD.org> <4FF6DB51.40904@FreeBSD.org> <508B8B4E-DF5E-412B-BD2B-86F21EBF4C8C@bsdimp.com> <4FF700CF.2000206@FreeBSD.org> <1DED79CC-CACD-4D22-9F1F-E3EB17938EB6@bsdimp.com> <4FF7182A.9070803@FreeBSD.org> <714BF622-A1B3-4A4A-A8BC-DCA82B4434A2@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <714BF622-A1B3-4A4A-A8BC-DCA82B4434A2@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: gcc46 header search path X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:29:46 -0000 on 06/07/2012 22:11 David Chisnall said the following: > On 6 Jul 2012, at 17:54, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> Yeah. Honestly speaking I myself was not aware of what is written in that >> link and I thought that our gcc ports (from ports) added /usr/local/include >> to the default search path by some mistake. And if somebody asked me what >> I thought about the idea of adding /usr/local/include to the default path, >> I'd say that it was a stupid idea. > > Why? The number one question I get from developers new FreeBSD is 'I wanted > to use libfoo from ports, I stalled it, and now [gcc,clang] doesn't find the > headers, why not?' No one has yet provided me with a sane reason why our > system compiler would not look in the standard locations where we install > headers and libraries. Running configure scripts on FreeBSD is a colossal > pain because of this - you often need to explicitly say > -with-foo-include=/usr/local/include -with-foo-lib=/usr/local/lib for an > arbitrary number of values of foo, depending on the library. > > Please, please, please, can we put our standard library and header paths in > the compiler standard header or library paths, or can someone give me a good > reason other than 'it's a stupid idea' why we should force every single > program that anyone compiles on FreeBSD to do CFLAGS=-I/usr/local/include > LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/lib? I think that this is a dummy argument. One could easily want his LOCALBASE to be /opt and the real ports system should support that. So what ports currently do, they really have to do (assuming $LOCALBASE as opposed to /usr/local). So, repeating myself for Nth time, the real question is whether we have any good reason to deviate from upstream's default behavior. Nothing less, nothing more, IMO. -- Andriy Gapon