From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 26 16:39:59 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93343106564A;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:39:59 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3379150D19;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:39:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <501172DD.3080000@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:39:57 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
	rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>
References: <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de>
In-Reply-To: <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>,
	Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>,
	freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>, Jase Thew <jase@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: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:39:59 -0000

On 7/26/2012 7:41 AM, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> 
> Jase Thew wrote:
>  > On 25/07/2012 23:57, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>  > > 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?
>  > 
>  > I can't see why it would be of benefit for saved options to override
>  > anything passed to make (either env or as an arg), as one of the reasons
>  > you're likely to be passing them is to override any saved settings in
>  > the first place.
>  > 
>  > Please consider reverting back to the established and I daresay,
>  > expected behaviour.
> 
> I agree with Jase.
> 
> Actually I'm not sure if PORTS_DBDIR should override make.conf
> or vice versa.  I don't know which one should be regarded as
> more specific.

Traditionally the precedence has been:

make.conf < OPTIONS < command line

The reason is that you want to set global options as high up as
possible, and then be able to override things for specific ports, and
specific builds.

We were promised that this would work with the new OPTIONS, it's
disappointing to here that it isn't.

> But anything specified on the commandline is definitely more
> specific than PORTS_DBDIR and should override anything else.

Right.

> One way to do that would be to introduce another pair of
> variables, e.g. OVERRIDE_SET and OVERRIDE_UNSET, so you could
> type:  make OVERRIDE_SET=STATIC

That shouldn't be necessary. The code should DTRT, as it did previously.

Doug

-- 

    Change is hard.