From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 27 12:25:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6311065674 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:25:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohauer@gmx.de) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 989778FC1A for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2012 12:25:36 -0000 Received: from hu5.abaxx.de (EHLO [10.6.25.100]) [213.61.170.110] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 27 Jul 2012 14:25:36 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1956535 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19L5uwgn9dLpnbWjF68Tbr/tJ9wvF7gE3h3UX7Yj+ zCmPUZpSxJCFIz Message-ID: <501288BF.7010600@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:25:35 +0200 From: olli hauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD Ports References: <501151A8.7000901@FreeBSD.org> <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de> <20120727094158.GC29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20120727094158.GC29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Baptiste Daroussin , Scot Hetzel , Oliver Fromme , Jase Thew Subject: Re: Question about new options framework (regression?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-ports List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:25:38 -0000 On 2012-07-27 11:41, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 04:41:10PM +0200, 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. >> >> But anything specified on the commandline is definitely more >> specific than PORTS_DBDIR and should override anything else. >> >> 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 >> > > 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 sounds > better to me. > Why reinvent the wheel ??? The vars -DWITH(OUT)_FOO is something already well known and documented, the wrapper is already in bsd.options.mk (last entry) but it broken at the moment. -- Regards, olli