Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:18:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> To: dougb@freebsd.org (Doug Barton), FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, Jase Thew <jase@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Question about new options framework (regression?) Message-ID: <201207271118.q6RBIboO047026@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <201207270925.q6R9PLCR042556@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver Fromme wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > > Traditionally the precedence has been: > > > > make.conf < OPTIONS < command line > > Are you sure? But how did the old framework find out if a > WITH_* / WITHOUT_* variable came from make.conf or from the > command line? Uhm, please ignore what I wrote. I forgot about "?=" syntax in make.conf ... In that case it works fine, of course. So, it really should be sufficient to move the compatibility section (the one that looks at WITH_* / WITHOUT_*) to the end of bsd.options.mk, after the section that loads the options file from $PORTS_DBDIR. Then the desired behaviour should be back. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "Python is an experiment in how much freedom programmers need. Too much freedom and nobody can read another's code; too little and expressiveness is endangered." -- Guido van Rossum
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201207271118.q6RBIboO047026>