On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Dimitry Andric <d...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 01 Apr 2016, at 00:44, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 31, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> > wrote: > >> I didn't realize the ports compiler was defaulting /usr/local/include > >> into the search path now. It does not have /usr/local/lib in the > >> default library path as far as I can tell. It's also broken for its > >> -rpath (noted in its pkg-message). So having a default > >> /usr/local/include path seems odd. > > > > It has for a while now. It’s one of the maddening inconsistencies that > abound in this > > area. I took a poll a while ago and there seemed to be widespread > support for adding > > it to the base compiler. > > This was the main reason /usr/local/include was *not* included in the > base compiler, otherwise it would unpredictably pick up headers in > /usr/local/include during builds. You can never know which conflicting > headers a certain user has installed in /usr/local/include... :) That's why it shouldn't be *FIRST*, not why it shouldn't be there at all. >> Adding -isystem /usr/include to fix this is probably possible but > >> there's a risk someone will remove it as redundant. In this case I wish > >> /usr/include was first but I'm not sure what impact that would have on > >> consumers expecting /usr/local/include (and /usr/local/lib) overrides to > >> work, though they would need to pass a -L /usr/local/lib anyhow and > >> would likely be passing -I /usr/local/lib too. > > > > /usr/include should be first. But it isn’t. That’s another inconsistency > that was found > > when we looked at /usr/local stuff. Someone recently added > /usr/local/bin to the path, > > if I recall correctly. > > Isn't that a bit of a bikeshed? I guess some people would just as well > prefer /usr/local/include to be first, just like some people prefer > /usr/local/bin before /usr/bin in their PATH. > Sigh. No. /usr/local is moving into many different things in the base and ports. We should do it in a consistent way. What we have now is not consistent and somewhat brittle. > In any case, if such paths are added to external compilers, we better > make sure almost everything in buildworld uses -nostdinc, and specifying > exactly the include directories we need, and no others. Cumbersome, but > maybe for a good cause. That's the non-brittle solution here. An over-reliance on defaults makes it difficult to ensure other compilers will work, especially ones we don't tightly control the defaults for. Warner _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"