From owner-freebsd-arch Mon May 27 22: 4:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from wantadilla.lemis.com (wantadilla.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F64937B406 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 22:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wantadilla.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id BEDEF81430; Tue, 28 May 2002 14:34:44 +0930 (CST) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:34:44 +0930 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey To: FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <20020528143444.R16567@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Organization: The FreeBSD Project Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I've just had a question from some friends in the Linux space about why we install additional libraries in /usr/local/lib and their header files in /usr/local/include, but gcc by default only searches /usr/local/libexec and /usr/local/lib for libraries and /usr/include for header files. They think that this is inconsistent, and I tend to agree. What speaks against adding the /usr/local directories to the specs files for gcc? Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message