Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:35:33 +0200 From: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, gahr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [BRAINSTORMIG] name of the variable for passing command line options via make Message-ID: <50621595.6050109@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83_cKdyPpKAzijs9w4-rFa1q1hMoPqHiSz-wgWjwvW=pOw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120924221524.GC79077@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120925114140.GP4956@gahrfit.gahr.ch> <CADLo83_cKdyPpKAzijs9w4-rFa1q1hMoPqHiSz-wgWjwvW=pOw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012-09-25 13:54, Chris Rees wrote: > On 25 Sep 2012 12:42, "Pietro Cerutti" <gahr@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> On 2012-Sep-25, 00:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> One of the missing thing since we switch to OptionNG is a reliable > ability to >>> pass options via command line that would override make.conf and config > file >>> options. >>> >>> Here is an implementation that do work: >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/OVERRIDE_BLA.diff >>> >>> Now OVERRIDE_SET/UNSET doesn't seems to be the best name :) >>> >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170180 >>> >>> Here are other proposition from me: >>> LATE_SET/UNSET >>> CMD_SET/UNSET >> >> WITH / WITHOUT > > I thought this was a joke, but thinking about it, this is the best idea IMO. I agree, but silently thinking OH NO! this brings us back to the discussions from a view months ago... If I understand correct the LATE_(UN)SET parameter can be used inside the port after including bsd.port.options.mk (where I really miss it) and CMD_(UN)SET from the command line. I'm fine with the naming if we can get them in, and as long we do not force the users to use "OVERRIDE_SET/UNSET" monsters on the command line. -- Regards, olli
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50621595.6050109>