Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

From: Cameron Katri via freebsd-current <freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:50:04 -0400
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_at_cameronkatri.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7D3B36CEA40FCC2181FB6DCDBAFFD97826540F1C

Received on Fri Jul 16 2021 - 15:50:04 UTC

Original text of this message