From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 26 05:57:48 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1F8106566B; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:57:48 +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 1D9B88FC0A; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:57:48 +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 q6Q5vlG0054696; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:57:48 GMT (envelope-from bapt@freebsd.org) Received: (from bapt@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q6Q5vlMm054695; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:57:47 GMT (envelope-from bapt@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: bapt set sender to bapt@freebsd.org using -f Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:57:45 +0000 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: freebsd-ports Message-ID: <20120726055745.GF13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20120725155932.GA13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <201207251709.q6PH9mpJ086314@lurza.secnetix.de> <5010640B.6070107@FreeBSD.org> <20120725225736.GD13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120726045555.GE13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <5010D410.8090102@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uTRFFR9qmiCqR05s" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5010D410.8090102@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Eitan Adler , Scot Hetzel , Oliver Fromme 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:57:48 -0000 --uTRFFR9qmiCqR05s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:22:24AM +0200, Olli Hauer wrote: > On 2012-07-26 06:55, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:40:56PM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: > >> On 25 July 2012 15:57, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> 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 wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The following diff will restore the old behavior so make.conf and co= mmand params have priority. > >>>> (Place the make.conf part after the OPTIONS_FILE_SET part) > >>>> > >>>> Until now I cannot see why the OPTIONS file should always win. > >>>> > >>> > >>> 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 not, > >>> can others spread their opinion here? > >> > >> An option specified on the command line is more specific and should > >> have priority over saved values or configuration files. > >> > >> --=20 > >> Eitan Adler > >=20 > > You can already do that: > > OPTIONSFILE=3D/my/path/to/options make config > >=20 >=20 > Are you kidding? Sorry I misunderstood Eitan mail :) >=20 > > because the priority goes to global to specific and the most specific i= s the options file. >=20 > I suspect no one wants to maintain different option files. > As shown options file is not the most specific one, it's the command arg. --uTRFFR9qmiCqR05s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlAQ3FkACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyK3gCgqhZXr2dwjVl+tILMQqGgDMM2 ImkAn0kb89L3l+6IGA0quzAn/NkcFbKk =Lm7O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uTRFFR9qmiCqR05s--