Subject: Re: Can we trim the fat from gcc3, please?
To: grant beattie <>
From: Frederick Bruckman <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/22/2003 06:15:23
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, grant beattie wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 03:10:04PM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > It's especially vexing, to me, that the package builds easily out of
> > the box, while pkgsrc and buildlink cause it to pick up extra
> > dependencies in $LOCALBASE, contrary to buildlink's stated purpose.
> "builds easily out of the box" is somewhat misleading in this
> context. yes, if you use --prefix=${LOCALBASE}, it may build cleanly,
> but it _will_ look in prefix/{include,lib} when you use it.
> this is utterly broken, and the reason we do not put it in
> in short, it is a gcc problem (just like the lack of implicit rpath
> to find it's own libraries!). it is exposed by the way we "hide"
> includes and libs.

Buildlink *doesn't* *fix* the problem. The bootstrap compiler, "xgcc",
is not wrapped or touched by buildlink in any way. Even if it were,
the issue you're complaining about is a configuration issue with "gcc"
(and "binutils", which is installed to ${LOCALBASE}), and not anything
buildlink can help with.