From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 27 09:42:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FE6106564A; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:42:01 +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 7AF908FC14; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:42:01 +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 q6R9g1RM019289; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:42:01 GMT (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from bapt@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q6R9g1Ro019288; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:42:01 GMT (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: bapt set sender to bapt@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:41:58 +0000 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Oliver Fromme Message-ID: <20120727094158.GC29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <501151A8.7000901@FreeBSD.org> <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="c3bfwLpm8qysLVxt" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Scot Hetzel , freebsd-ports , Jase Thew 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: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:42:01 -0000 --c3bfwLpm8qysLVxt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 04:41:10PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: >=20 > Jase Thew wrote: > > On 25/07/2012 23:57, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > because the priority goes to global to specific and the most specifi= c is the > > > options file. > > >=20 > > > if most people want the options file to not have the final priority,= why not, > > > can others spread their opinion here? > >=20 > > 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 reaso= ns > > you're likely to be passing them is to override any saved settings in > > the first place. > >=20 > > Please consider reverting back to the established and I daresay, > > expected behaviour. >=20 > I agree with Jase. >=20 > 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. >=20 > But anything specified on the commandline is definitely more > specific than PORTS_DBDIR and should override anything else. >=20 > 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=3DSTATIC >=20 I think that is the more reasonnable, I'll add this when fully back. I was thinking of LATE_SET and LATE_UNSET but OVERRIDE_SET and OVERRIDE_UNSET sou= nds better to me. regards, Bapt --c3bfwLpm8qysLVxt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlASYmYACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyPRQCgwmbTpIS3DXmPwXiEymYAmDH1 yucAn0l5G/VZHH+K8oD3wd1Rc1j2qNjA =4WqL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --c3bfwLpm8qysLVxt--