Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:57:36 +0000 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org> 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?) Message-ID: <20120725225736.GD13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <5010640B.6070107@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120725155932.GA13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <201207251709.q6PH9mpJ086314@lurza.secnetix.de> <CACdU%2Bf_RW6eWdW9sZsTDfx7bz7L54u5C6qj-e9cBy714WM6KQA@mail.gmail.com> <5010640B.6070107@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120725225736.GD13771>