This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.3
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" <drepper@redhat.com>
To: "Mike Black" <mblack@csi-inc.com>
Cc: <libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com>; <linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org>
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-----