Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:27:31 +1000 From: Martin Pool <mbp@samba.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: grog@freebsd.org, peter@wemm.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <20020529062728.GJ25763@samba.org> In-Reply-To: <20020528.233729.115542684.imp@village.org> References: <20020529122327.C82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020528.221453.83474290.imp@village.org> <20020529140813.P82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020528.233729.115542684.imp@village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 May 2002, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> wrote: > In message: <20020529140813.P82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> > "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org> writes: > : > We shouldn't search it because that may break other things. > : > : What? > > It increases the default security domain from /usr/include and > /usr/lib to also include /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include > silently. Right now users must explicitly declare that they want to > link against this less secure domain by adding -I/usr/local/include > and -L/usr/lcoal/include to the build process. I thought that was probably the reason. Given the arguments advanced, I'm curious whether you think that packages which are not specific to BSD ought to detect BSD and add those paths, or whether they ought to break by default and require the user to specifically nominate /usr/local/? The first is probably more friendly, but in a way it undermines the BSD maintainers' design. -- Martin 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?20020529062728.GJ25763>