Subject: Re: pkg-src build problems.
To: Todd Vierling <>
From: Simon Burge <>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 12/11/1998 16:16:19
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:34:00 -0500 (EST)  Todd Vierling wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Simon Burge wrote:
> : Is it worth changing the gcc/egcs specs so that /usr/pkg/include (and
> : perhaps /usr/X11R6/include?) get searched for includes, and the relevent
> : lib directories for libraries?  One obvious problem is if someone
> : changes ${LOCALBASE}.
> Heh.
> No.
> That's what -I is for, and there was a very, very long thread about why
> NetBSD's compiler does not search /usr/local/include by default.  Now that
> we have a pkgsrc system, the reasoning is twofold:  we don't want to pick up
> stuff unintentionally in /usr/local to compile pkgs.

I remember the thread :). I certainly wasn't advocating bringing
/usr/local/include back in.

I was looking at it more from the angle of the newer users who say
``I just installed the foo-lib package, but my program files on the
line that has "#include <foo.h>" doesn't work''.  Sure, it's easy to
say ``add -I/usr/pkg/include and -L/usr/pkg/lib somewhere in your
Makefile'', but that seems to get away from the "load and go" image that
packages seem to present.  Some of the libtool-based packages seem to
throw a little blurb about usage at you - does this also happen with the
pre-compiled packages?  Maybe a better blurb is the answer...