Rich Cook <email@hidden> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2004, at 8:29 PM, Bill Northcott wrote:
>
> >> From: Rich Cook <email@hidden>
> >> Hmmm... How is placing a useful library in a standard location like
> >> /usr/local/lib "pollution?"
> >
> > /usr/local/lib is only marginally different to /sw/lib. If either is
> > in the default ld/dyld search paths or I use -L/usr/local/lib in a
> > link command, I am immediately condemned to link all the Fink/whatever
> > stuff that has been installed, whether I want it or not. That is what
> > I mean by pollution. Obviously the same applies to headers at compile
> > time.
>
> You are just incorrect here. -L/usr/local/lib does not link *ANYTHING*
> in, it simply adds /usr/local/lib to the search paths for libs you
> explicitly request with -lname.
> Also, there is an important difference between /sw/lib and
> /usr/local/lib that seems to escape your attention: everybody else
> knows about /usr/local/lib, whereas /sw/lib is a bit odd. Following
> convention can be useful when porting codes across multiple platforms.
There is another difference which you may be unaware of. At least with
gcc, you don't need -L/usr/local/lib because that is already in the
search path for libraries. So, if your goal was to set things up so
that it was possible to *avoid* the library when you want to, you would
install it someplace other than /usr/local/lib. Which is what fink does.
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
scitech mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/scitech
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
