From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Fitzgibbon To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: local_prefix a mistake Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:45:00 -0000 Message-id: <199712161640.QAA01830@gertrude.robots.ox.ac.uk> References: <19971213174102.13530@jpr.com> <19971214133153.00315@dgii.com> <19971214231319.31390@jpr.com> <199712151137.LAA26890@gertrude.robots.ox.ac.uk> <19971215094050.30587@sco.com> X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg00900.html J. Kean Johnston writes: >On Mon, Dec 15, 1997 at 11:37:48AM +0000, Andrew Fitzgibbon wrote: >> It's a problem with local_prefix, which ought to be removed. It's >> undeniably useful, but the user should explicitly specify any -I flags >> other than for /usr/include. >Not when the compiler is installed in /usr/local it shouldn't. The current >behaviour is correct and desirable. /usr/local is traditionally for add-on >stuff. You added on a vital VITAL development tool, your compiler. Why >would one assume if you are brave enough to use a replacement compiler >that you dont want to use replacement and addon libraries too? In that case, one should be allowed to specify local-prefix. In fact, I used to patch gcc so that multiple -local-prefix options could be supplied but I stopped when I realised that even the default one was a bad idea. Any Makefiles that depend on it will not work with other compilers. >If you REALLY wanna get around this, configure your egcs with --prefix=/usr >so that everything gets installed in /usr/bin, /usr/include etc. *THAT* is >when adding -I/usr/local/include would be The Wrong Thing. Therefore on linux the current behaviour is incorrect and (arguably) undesirable.