From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul 25 22:57:39 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7D0106564A;
	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:57:39 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bapt@freebsd.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F49B8FC0A;
	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:57:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6PMvd4M099723;
	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:57:39 GMT (envelope-from bapt@freebsd.org)
Received: (from bapt@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q6PMvcCr099722;
	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:57:38 GMT (envelope-from bapt@freebsd.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: bapt set sender to
	bapt@freebsd.org using -f
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:57:36 +0000
From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
To: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20120725225736.GD13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
References: <20120725155932.GA13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
	<201207251709.q6PH9mpJ086314@lurza.secnetix.de>
	<CACdU+f_RW6eWdW9sZsTDfx7bz7L54u5C6qj-e9cBy714WM6KQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5010640B.6070107@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8w3uRX/HFJGApMzv"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5010640B.6070107@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>,
	freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Question about new options framework (regression?)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:57:39 -0000


--8w3uRX/HFJGApMzv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:24:27PM +0200, Olli Hauer wrote:
> On 2012-07-25 20:18, Scot Hetzel wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de=
> wrote:
>=20
> The following diff will restore the old behavior so make.conf and command=
 params have priority.
> (Place the make.conf part after the OPTIONS_FILE_SET part)
>=20
> Until now I cannot see why the OPTIONS file should always win.
>=20

because the priority goes to global to specific and the most specific is the
options file.

if most people want the options file to not have the final priority, why no=
t,
can others spread their opinion here?

regards,
Bapt

--8w3uRX/HFJGApMzv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlAQeeAACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyRrgCcC3lCjKRWr3fn0/pgiTdCRr+M
KoEAniNpWmbCT6bfXyS7z+AtrGOYGVwh
=Q8DD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8w3uRX/HFJGApMzv--