Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 18:16:35 +0100 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ? Message-ID: <a673a022-c226-5e71-6a47-a0c2f0062c2a@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20210716155004.d2qiciqkipmegs3j@FreeBSDY540> References: <CAOtMX2g3G0nFCXGoWo14d1iwOisBUBAom6=v_gTHfJOoT3mJdw@mail.gmail.com> <20210716155004.d2qiciqkipmegs3j@FreeBSDY540>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16/07/2021 16:50, Cameron Katri via freebsd-current wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 09:01:49AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: >> FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH. >> AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD >> 0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make sense to me that >> /usr/local/X should come first. That way programs installed from ports can >> override FreeBSD's defaults. Is there a good reason for this convention, >> or is it just inertia? > The biggest example I can think of this being a problem is having > binutils installed, it will cause any calls to elftoolchain or > llvm-binutils to go to GNU binutils which is platform specific, so cross > compiling, or LTO could be broken because of using GNU binutils which > don't support cross compiling or LTO. FWIW: In about 20 years of using FreeBSD, my $PATH has always had /usr/local/bin before /usr/bin and I have never once encountered a problem from this. If I install something from ports that's already in the base system, it's invariably because I want to use it in preference to the base-system version. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a673a022-c226-5e71-6a47-a0c2f0062c2a>