Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:14:53 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> To: grog@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: peter@wemm.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <20020528.221453.83474290.imp@village.org> In-Reply-To: <20020529122327.C82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20020529093009.C31668@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020529012544.14816380A@overcee.wemm.org> <20020529122327.C82424@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20020529122327.C82424@wantadilla.lemis.com>
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
: I'm complaining about the implementation. Since the Ports Collection
: installs by default in /usr/local, it seems reasonable to at least put
: these directories at the end of the search paths for header files and
: libraries.
It is working as designed. /usr/local/* isn't searched by default,
and never have been in BSD. Just because Linux is lame doesn't mean
that we should be too.
We shouldn't search /usr/local by default because PREFIX can be set to
anything. We shouldn't search it because that may break other
things.
Warner
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?20020528.221453.83474290.imp>