Re: GCC 2.95 does not look in /usr/local/include

[mrs at wrs dot com (Mike Stump)]

> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
> From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)

> I sent a patch many years for Linux to make gcc as the vendor
> compiler and it was accepted. However, egcs didn't have the patch
> and I sent it again.  This time I was told egcs wouldn't be used as
> the vendor compiler and someone might even remove my patch from the
> gcc subdirectory. That might be ok since there was gcc 2.7.2.3. Now
> egcs == gcc. My patch should go in.

I feel this patch is just plain wrong.  When people put a linux
distribution together, they are free to install gcc in /usr, in fact,
I would claim that is one of the only right places.  /usr is owned by
the distribution, not by any component of the distribution.

As people install snapshots of gcc, or just random cvs checkouts of
gcc, you're saying that you want their system to be toasted by default
when they do a make install?  gcc has a decade of installing in
/usr/local, everyone expects that.  Bear in mind, it isn't just gcc,
it is all net software.  This has been the standard for 15+ years or
so... and you expect to be able to get change it?

Go interview 1000 sysadmins and ask them what they would think of GNU
textutils, if it defaulted to installing in /bin.  It doesn't matter
if it is RedHat, SCO or Solaris, it is just not acceptable.

Think of /usr/local as locally installed software, and /bin as vendor
supplied software.  Think of RedHat as the vendor, not the FSF.  Think
of the FSF as supplying locally installed software, that is also
suitible for vendors to choose and install, if they want.