Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:56:15 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Martin Pool <mbp@samba.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org>, 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: <20020529125615.D2156@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20020529062728.GJ25763@samba.org>; from mbp@samba.org on Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:27:31PM %2B1000 References: <20020529122327.C82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020528.221453.83474290.imp@village.org> <20020529140813.P82424@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020528.233729.115542684.imp@village.org> <20020529062728.GJ25763@samba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:27:31PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote: > 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/? *sigh* All the word is NOT GCC on 386 Linux! No, packages should add those paths. The SUNpro compiler on Solaris does not check /usr/local by default either. Nor does the native compilers on Tru64 and HP-UX (IIRC). 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?20020529125615.D2156>