Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:37:29 -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: <20020528.233729.115542684.imp@village.org> In-Reply-To: <20020529140813.P82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20020529122327.C82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020528.221453.83474290.imp@village.org> <20020529140813.P82424@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20020529140813.P82424@wantadilla.lemis.com>
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: > We shouldn't search it because that may break other things.
:
: What?
It increases the default security domain from /usr/include and
/usr/lib to also include /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include
silently. Right now users must explicitly declare that they want to
link against this less secure domain by adding -I/usr/local/include
and -L/usr/lcoal/include to the build process.
Maybe this isn't a show stopper, but it is the sort of thing that
needs to be considered before we put a change like this into the tree.
I think that it is a sufficient reason to block the addition.
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?20020528.233729.115542684.imp>