Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:14:53 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <3CF3124D.8E98E9C@mindspring.com> References: <20020528143444.R16567@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I've just had a question from some friends in the Linux space about > why we install additional libraries in /usr/local/lib and their header > files in /usr/local/include, but gcc by default only searches > /usr/local/libexec and /usr/local/lib for libraries and /usr/include > for header files. They think that this is inconsistent, and I tend to > agree. What speaks against adding the /usr/local directories to the > specs files for gcc? The fact that ldconfig is assinine, and prevents loading the shared libraries at runtime, even if they are found at link time, for one, because ld.so doesn't fall back to searching known directories, if it fails to find libraries in cache, unless you set LD_LIBRARY_PATH explicitly. Or in shorting terms: "Doing that doesn't actually work". -- Terry 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?3CF3124D.8E98E9C>