Re: ${LD} incorrectly rewritten

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:53:27AM -0700, Brook Milligan wrote:
 > > > Why have a path there at all? LD=ld should be safe, no?
 > > 
 > > It makes the behavior of the tools not predictable because they
 > > rely on the PATH.  I.e. a particular tool was built against a
 > > known-working ld binary but a user may suffer apparently random
 > > errors if his PATH points to a different (and
 > > broken/incompatible) ld.
 > 
 > Which is why I was interested in including the full path.  However, I
 > cannot find anywhere in pkgsrc that defines the path to ld.  There are
 > things like ${CCPATH} and ${CPPPATH}, but no ${LDPATH}.
 > 
 > Is ${LDPATH} something that should be added to pkgsrc or is ${LD},
 > i.e., without a path, ok for this substitution?

I would just use ${LD} without a path, for the following reasons:

(1) if the makefile is subsequently used from pkgsrc, it'll DTRT,
whereas an absolute path will bypass the wrappers and possibly fail
mysteriously;

(2) someone who has a broken ld first on their path and tries to
compile stuff is not going to have much luck regardless of what we put
here;

(3) someone who is trying to juggle two partly-working ld binaries on
their system, using each one only in the contexts where it works, is
probably going to have to hand-edit things anyway, and given (1)
trying to support this case is probably futile anyway.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost