Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:18:15 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Cc: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <3CF3D7F7.20A30ACF@mindspring.com> References: <20020528143444.R16567@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020528084248.B59588@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:34:44PM +0930, 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 > > The system GCC searching any part of /usr/local is a bug. It is not > [ports] PREFIX clean. (you have typos above about /usr/local/libexec > don't you?) Potentialy, the ports .mk files, when they observe PREFIX, should reset the entire include and library path, so this really should not be an issue. -- Terry 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?3CF3D7F7.20A30ACF>