Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:30:12 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <dev-null@NUXI.com> To: Mark Valentine <mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@regency.nsu.ru>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, FreeBSD-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <20020619103012.A41546@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200206191326.g5JDQmAo039570@dotar.thuvia.org>; from mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk on Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:26:48PM %2B0100 References: <200206191326.g5JDQmAo039570@dotar.thuvia.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:26:48PM +0100, Mark Valentine wrote: > I even have to patch /usr/local out of BSD.usr.dist here (I raised that flag > a long time ago in PR misc/355). What is wrong with local/ in BSD.usr.dist? All it does is create the directory tree, which it sounds like you want anyway. BSD.usr.dist does not determine where ports are installed. 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?20020619103012.A41546>