Re: --without-local-prefix Does Not Work

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <35F840F5.AF965A4B@faw.uni-ulm.de>you write:
  > > Specifying "no" does not disable the use of local_prefix, nor should
  > > it.  The fact that it did so in earlier snapshots/releases was a bug.
  > >
  > 
  > Why? Could you please be a bit more specific?
$local_prefix/include is where gcc expects to find certain header files
that have been installed by other packages or sysadmins.   Typically
/usr/local/include.

  > > One could argue that =no should give an error.  I don't remember the
  > > rationale behind not generating an error for that.
  > >
  > 
  > So the default is to silently set it to /usr/local, isn't it?
Yes.

  > 1. Our  amd-based network, machines don't have /usr/local (intentionally re
  > moved
  > by the sysadmin). With egcs silently adding /usr/local/include to the inclu
  > de
  > path, each invocation of gcc and friends contacts amd to resolve
  > /usr/local/include. - A secure way to produce heavy traffic on a network.
So configure with --local-prefix=/nowhere.


  > One alternative I see to circumvent these problems is to manually redirect
  > local_prefix to an arbitrary directory ($prefix/local/include or $prefix/include,
  > but who knows which kind of trouble will result from this).
The Makefile says explicitly that local_prefix should not default
from prefix.

  > Additional question: What is the default for local_prefix or how is it trea ted for
  > cross-compilers? AFAIS, it gets disabled. I.e. disabling local_prefix seems  to be
  > legal for cross-compilers.
Not sure.  Someone would have to dive into the Makefile to see.
jeff