From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mike Black" Subject: Re: glibc 2.3 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:26:23 -0400 Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <01db01c26af9$9d9bf580$f6de11cc@black> References: <3D9C1775.9030503@redhat.com> <018901c26af7$7b78dce0$f6de11cc@black> <3D9C6ECD.3050307@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org But configure says NOT to install in /usr/local FAQ says TO install in /usr/local Which is it? Or am I supposed to pick something other than /usr/ or /usr/local now? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ulrich Drepper" To: "Mike Black" Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:22 PM Subject: Re: glibc 2.3 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mike Black wrote: > > > It appears configure is using prefix /usr/local and spits out a bogus message. > > THere is no bogus messages. Installing in /usr/local does not overwrite > the system's libc and is safe from this perspective. But gcc handles > /usr/local special which might lead to normal compilations picking the > headers up which might or might not lead to problems. And /usr/local is > the default prefix because this is what it always is. > > - -- > - --------------. ,-. 444 Castro Street > Ulrich Drepper \ ,-----------------' \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA > Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `--------------------------- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQE9nG7N2ijCOnn/RHQRAnSbAJ4/nvyFSjpqDjqjwWZvfCnXPt115wCbB473 > FZtM68iPti/03fqC28vf5kk= > =UsED > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----