The thread has pointed out that there would not be an issue if that were the case: it appears Gnu toolchain puts /usr/local first.
Dominik Reichardt <domi...@gmail.com> wrote: >Honoring the order in PATH so when /opt/local is in front of /usr, >compilers will honor that. So yes PATH has a lot to do with this. >Opposed to the /usr/local issue. >Check your attitude please > >Am 05.04.2012 um 10:59 schrieb Jan Stary <h...@stare.cz>: > >> On Apr 05 10:49:01, Dominik Reichardt wrote: >>> As far as I can tell, /usr in PATH is being honored >>> opposed to /usr/local being picked up automatically. >> >> I don't know how "honored" differs from "being picked up", >> but PATH has nothing to do with this. >> >> >>> Am 05.04.2012 um 10:25 schrieb Jan Stary <h...@stare.cz>: >>> >>>> On Apr 05 09:00:44, Jan Stary wrote: >>>>> However, if a given port silently picks up something >>>>> incompatible in /usr/local, if might fail and often will. >>>>> >>>>> Having macports isolated in /opt/local DID NOT save you from this. >>>>> Removing /usr/local is what did. >>>> >>>> One more point to this: what if the colliding, incompatible >>>> software that stops a given port from building successfully >>>> is not found under /usr/local, but in /usr, which is >>>> even more prominently recognized by various build tools. >>>> >>>> That's not made up: /usr/lib/libssl.* >>>> Say the port requires a newer version of openssl >>>> than what /usr/lib/libssl.* provides. >>>> >>>> That's the same situation as with a port not building >>>> because some incompatbile software was found and >>>> picked up from /usr/local; except now it is /usr. >>>> >>>> What is the advice here? >>>> Ceratinly not to temporarily rename /usr. >>>> >>>> I argue that temporarily removing /usr/local is just as bad, >>>> and the problem of a port picking bad stuff from /usr/local >>>> is that given port's defect that needs to be fixed before >>>> the port gets built; not a reason to remove /usr/local. >>>> >>>> (Which doesn't change the fact that /opt/local is a better prefix, >>>> I am over that already.) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> macports-users mailing list >>>> macports-users@lists.macosforge.org >>>> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users >> _______________________________________________ >> macports-users mailing list >> macports-users@lists.macosforge.org >> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users >_______________________________________________ >macports-users mailing list >macports-users@lists.macosforge.org >http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users