Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@...> writes:
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2009, at 12:03, mcalh...@... wrote:
>
> > Revision: 54368
> > http://trac.macports.org/changeset/54368
> > Author: mcalh...@...
> > Date: 2009-07-25 10:03:12 -0700 (Sat, 25 Jul 2009)
> > Log Message:
> > -----------
>
> Wait, what? In this commit I see you adding CPATH and LIBRARY_PATH
> but I don't see you deleting the -I and -L stuff. I thought it was an
> either/or thing -- either you use -I and -L or you use CPATH and
> LIBRARY_PATH. Is that not right? How does it all interact if you use
> all of them at once like this? How did you find that this is better
> than the other proposal of changing -I to -isystem?
>
> http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2009-April/
> 008148.html
>
>
I do not think there is any harm in having both -I,-L and
CPATH,LIBRARY_PATH.
I have not found any problems at least.
I did not delete -I${prefix}/include and -L${prefix}/lib because something
similar caused problems with qt4-mac (see r54186), and I was afraid it
might have broken other packages which have their own build programs.
I used CPATH instead of -isystem because, as for as I know, there is no matching
-lsystem which would appends to the library search path like -isystem appends
to the include search paths.
CPATH on the other hand has an equivalent LIBRARY_PATH.
-Marcus
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
