On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 13:40 -0700, Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007, David M. Fetter wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 13:25 -0700, Bill Campbell wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007, David M. Fetter wrote:
> >> >It seems that for some reason gcc is not acknowledging
> >> >our /usr/local/include directory in it's includes when building. In
> >> >fact, there is this specific bit in the spec file:
> >> >
> >> > %{l_shtool} subst -v -s \
> >> > -e 's;PREFIX_INCLUDE_DIR;PREFIX_INCLUDE_DIR_DISABLED;g' \
> >> > gcc/configure
> >> >
> >> >We happen to use /usr/local as our openpkg prefix since this is an
> >> >unused location for us across all of our systems and it is a common
> >> >place where software like this is typically found so it makes it easy
> >> >for the end users to find. In any case, we're still looking into this
> >> >but it seems that by removing this bit from the spec file, it causes
> >> >another series of dilemmas. One such dilemma is that multilib is being
> >> >enabled on RHEL4 64-bit when apparently that's not a good thing on that
> >> >particular platform. Any help with this would be great. Thanks. :-)
> >>
> >> A symlink from a ``normal'' OpenPKG instance to /usr/local?
> >>
> >> I often make symlinks such as %{l_prefix}/bin/perl to /usr/local/bin/perl
> >> to deal with software that may have this hard coded.
> >
> >That's not really a viable option for us now. We have been
> >using /usr/local as the prefix for openpkg since it has been setup here.
> >However, even so, should there really be prefix locations that are
> >essentially "off limits" for openpkg installations? It seems like the
> >option to set the prefix to /usr/local is there so it should be a usable
> >option. I'm thinking the problem should be fixed within gcc.
>
> I would avoid /usr/local as a prefix, particularly since FreeBSD systems
> use that extensively for anything not in the core distribution (as $DEITY
> intended :-). We also have several ISP customers who, after long training
> and browbeating, have learned to put their site-specific scripts under
> /usr/local, not in /usr/bin or simlar travesties.I totally understand. However, environments can be and typically are very different from one another. We don't use FreeBSD, we only use Solaris and RHEL. We don't have people putting things in /usr/local either. In fact, since we have now been using /usr/local for our core software for the past couple years now, our end-users have become accustomed to that location as to where they can find what they need. We have also wrapped cfengine around openpkg in a very intricate manner. Changing the /usr/local prefix for us would mean a major project for restructuring our environment. In the end, it seems that only gcc itself is having some oddity and that if said oddity is fixed then it no longer becomes an issue. Ultimately, we just want to get gcc fixed and working how we need without having to restructure our entire environment. ;-) > > Bill > -- > INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC > URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way > FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 > > ``It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!'' > -- Emiliano Zapata. > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenPKG http://openpkg.org > User Communication List openpkg-users@openpkg.org > -- David M. Fetter - UNIX Systems Administrator Portland State University - www.oit.pdx.edu
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
