Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 15:50:04 UTC
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 09:01:49AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: > FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH. > AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD > 0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make sense to me that > /usr/local/X should come first. That way programs installed from ports can > override FreeBSD's defaults. Is there a good reason for this convention, > or is it just inertia? The biggest example I can think of this being a problem is having binutils installed, it will cause any calls to elftoolchain or llvm-binutils to go to GNU binutils which is platform specific, so cross compiling, or LTO could be broken because of using GNU binutils which don't support cross compiling or LTO. - Cameron Katri > -Alan -- Cameron Katri Email: me@cameronkatri.com PGP Fingerprint: 7D3B36CEA40FCC2181FB6DCDBAFFD97826540F1C