Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:25:35 +0200 From: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de> To: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>, Jase Thew <jase@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Question about new options framework (regression?) Message-ID: <501288BF.7010600@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20120727094158.GC29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <501151A8.7000901@FreeBSD.org> <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de> <20120727094158.GC29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?501288BF.7010600>