Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:33:23 +0000 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@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: <20120727123323.GD29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <501288BF.7010600@gmx.de> References: <501151A8.7000901@FreeBSD.org> <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de> <20120727094158.GC29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <501288BF.7010600@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--bajzpZikUji1w+G9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:25:35PM +0200, olli hauer wrote: > 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 spec= ific is the > >> > > options file. > >> > >=20 > >> > > if most people want the options file to not have the final priori= ty, 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 re= asons > >> > 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. > >> > >> 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=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= sounds > > better to me. > >=20 >=20 > Why reinvent the wheel ??? >=20 > 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. >=20 Because WITH(OUT) is inconsistent and is dependant from how the maintainer = is writting its ports: does he check for both WITH_ and !WITHOUT_ for example,= does he check for only one of them? One of the reason of the new options framework is to get rid of WITH_ and WITHOUT_ because it is not consistent never work the same over the ports and that the user have to check the Makefile itself to determine if what is che= cked is WITH_ or WITHOUT_ regards, Bapt --bajzpZikUji1w+G9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlASipMACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzdlQCeP+laNnq9MyBqbcWoE/BZFMbJ xOQAoJYjz/yiAiMaA3Bvku7o8/tbwaaz =jw++ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bajzpZikUji1w+G9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120727123323.GD29866>