Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:29:21 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <20020528172921.2EBB6380A@overcee.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20020528143444.R16567@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" wrote: > 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? gcc and ld do not look at /usr/local at all. We set /usr/local/lib in the ld-elf.so.1 search path, but ld-elf.so.1 != ld. ld actually looks for *.a and *.so, while ld-elf.so.1 looks for *.so.* We have folks who have ports elsewhere than /usr/local. Eg: when /usr/local is NFS shared from a netapp or something. If ports depend on gcc assuming that ports are in /usr/local, then they stop working when they are put elsewhere (/opt, /home/local, whatever) since they'd suddenly need to explicitly add -I and -L paths. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 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?20020528172921.2EBB6380A>