freebsd stable - Oct 2015 - A quick poll

Greetings,

The topic of including /usr/local in the paths for compilers, linkers, etc has
come up again. I?ve started a poll to judge sentiment in the community about
what the default policy of FreeBSD should be in this regard.

This topic has been much debated in the past. Those against it generally believe
that it pollutes the namespace to include /usr/local/* by default. The defaults
should only include what we include in the system to avoid accidents. Those for
it say that it has become standard in other projects and that makes it easier
for people porting software to FreeBSD as well as making it easier for users to
use stuff they?ve installed from ports.

I make no judgement over which one is ?correct? since I can understand the
argument on both sides.

So I?ve created this poll https://reviews.freebsd.org/V6 to gage opinion of the
project and its users. If I did things right, the poll is open to everybody. The
poll will be used as data, but I make no promises about what will happen with
this data. The poll will sat for 2 weeks, and I?ll publish the results here.

Warner

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL:
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20151012/7b2bd338/attachment.bin>

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:47:50 -0600 Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com>
wrote:
> The topic of including /usr/local in the paths for compilers, linkers,
> etc has come up again. I?ve started a poll to judge sentiment in the
> community about what the default policy of FreeBSD should be in this
> regard.
> 
> This topic has been much debated in the past. Those against it generally
> believe that it pollutes the namespace to include /usr/local/* by
> default. The defaults should only include what we include in the system
> to avoid accidents. Those for it say that it has become standard in
> other projects and that makes it easier for people porting software to
> FreeBSD as well as making it easier for users to use stuff they?ve
> installed from ports.
> 
> I make no judgement over which one is ?correct? since I can understand
> the argument on both sides.
> 
> So I?ve created this poll https://reviews.freebsd.org/V6 to gage opinion
> of the project and its users. If I did things right, the poll is open to
> everybody. The poll will be used as data, but I make no promises about
> what will happen with this data. The poll will sat for 2 weeks, and I?ll
> publish the results here.
The current situation is bit messed up.  The base system compiler and the
Clang/LLVM ports don't search /usr/local, but lang/gcc* does.  It searches
/usr/local/include (actually PREFIX/include) *before* /usr/include:

% cpp49 -v < /dev/null
...
#include <...> search starts here:
 /usr/local/lib/gcc49/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd11.0/4.9.3/include
 /usr/local/include
 /usr/local/lib/gcc49/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd11.0/4.9.3/include-fixed
 /usr/include


And ld from devel/binutils (used by lang/gcc*) searches /usr/local/lib
*after* /usr/lib:

% grep SEARCH /usr/local/i386-portbld-freebsd11.0/lib/ldscripts/elf_i386_fbsd.x
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/i386-portbld-freebsd11.0/lib");
SEARCH_DIR("=/lib");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib");


So whatever is decided, at least make all compilers/linkers consistent
and let them search directories in the same order.