From owner-freebsd-arch Tue May 28 23:30:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from palrel11.hp.com (palrel11.hp.com [156.153.255.246]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF4E37B40A; Tue, 28 May 2002 23:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hpausa5.aus.hp.com (hpausa5.aus.hp.com [15.23.66.135]) by palrel11.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D9E600BA4; Tue, 28 May 2002 23:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from anomic.aus.hp.com (nevada.aus.hp.com [15.30.165.16]) by hpausa5.aus.hp.com with ESMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6 SMKit7.03) id QAA12058; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:27:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mbp by anomic.aus.hp.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Cwvn-00072h-00; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:27:35 +0800 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:27:31 +1000 From: Martin Pool To: "M. Warner Losh" 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> References: <20020529122327.C82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020528.221453.83474290.imp@village.org> <20020529140813.P82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020528.233729.115542684.imp@village.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020528.233729.115542684.imp@village.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-GPG: 1024D/A0B3E88B: AFAC578F 1841EE6B FD95E143 3C63CA3F A0B3E88B Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 28 May 2002, "M. Warner Losh" wrote: > In message: <20020529140813.P82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> > "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" 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