Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:46:23 +0100 From: Jase Thew <jase@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Question about new options framework (regression?) Message-ID: <5012B7CF.9020002@FreeBSD.org> 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
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigA02A8F06992716301ED1B4CB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 27/07/2012 10:41, 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 overrid= e >> > 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 What use-case are you thinking of that requires the ability for saved config to override manually specified config? If there isn't a compelling reason for this, then I'd personally much rather see the original behaviour restored rather than adding another two variables. Regards, Jase. --=20 Jase Thew jase@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD Ports Committer --------------enigA02A8F06992716301ED1B4CB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJQErfcAAoJEKSEvNs+6vHrl08L+wV/fYHILtZKMSlzwP2AAQPm YV36oF3Dr18srVRWQo+UwwKYlEflxsSIL27Ig6M4JQoFvMLfoLbQKo7lXOfrP+oa mYGha9oS4SGQ8/Qf5CAIt98rHe6MlsVdL4r10gsWfwCIdqj7va7u0mbQSFVodsJX hYW6DMwPHTYrUhiFMUE+kqoXTZBI0nmH4cJ5zOR94vHmmwBMfm2O7uDsoMu5TA5N 1EYUGS0j0dGwj/3P2W2XkOUPl0P5KeK6vzH0G/0ZqWcaIIgmcoERzbnV/uytImE+ wM9wLSArPoCTxfjQlbsI9avIpvrPr+za0R9lshtw/ECjHhaxwOoOH/6JuRftR5TH jDsHxCwew1A+vsarR3+nHFLIjQbm8caUHu4VCGCBRvXsmGYIahuR4O+B+8lfmJaA +iHBwd9OeSGLrROBw8gyrsHxnL/I5EjZrsUkZZH7HFrQ+uAMECQwTIPtOw9UBHH4 u2elc5MZMCc3v4zhNd/pnavEE0yJwucjtTwFEjZFHw== =TPxF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigA02A8F06992716301ED1B4CB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5012B7CF.9020002>