local_prefix a mistake

[Andrew Fitzgibbon]

J. Kean Johnston writes:
>On Mon, Dec 15, 1997 at 11:37:48AM +0000, Andrew Fitzgibbon wrote:
>> It's a problem with local_prefix, which ought to be removed.  It's
>> undeniably useful, but the user should explicitly specify any -I flags
>> other than for /usr/include.

>Not when the compiler is installed in /usr/local it shouldn't. The current
>behaviour is correct and desirable. /usr/local is traditionally for add-on
>stuff. You added on a vital VITAL development tool, your compiler. Why
>would one assume if you are brave enough to use a replacement compiler
>that you dont want to use replacement and addon libraries too?

In that case, one should be allowed to specify local-prefix.  In fact, I
used to patch gcc so that multiple -local-prefix options could be supplied
but I stopped when I realised that even the default one was a bad idea.

Any Makefiles that depend on it will not work with other compilers.

>If you REALLY wanna get around this, configure your egcs with --prefix=/usr
>so that everything gets installed in /usr/bin, /usr/include etc. *THAT* is
>when adding -I/usr/local/include would be The Wrong Thing.

Therefore on linux the current behaviour is incorrect and (arguably)
undesirable.