Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:18:44 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>, Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>, Ganael LAPLANCHE <martymac@FreeBSD.org>, Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>, Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: optionsng and tinderbox? Message-ID: <20120623081843.GC41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <4FE51858.4010502@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FE12F2D.9080302@FreeBSD.org> <20120620061136.GA79164@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FE1829D.6030109@FreeBSD.org> <20120620091321.GA83730@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120620094431.M12775@martymac.org> <20120620103412.GB83730@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FE1C1EA.8070901@FreeBSD.org> <20120621090226.M48537@FreeBSD.org> <4FE4AEFC.4070405@FreeBSD.org> <4FE51858.4010502@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 06:14:00PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 10:44, Olli Hauer wrote:
> > On 2012-06-21 11:26, Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:28:26 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote
> >>
> >>> [...]
> >>> Shouldn't make.conf / commandline settings override OPTIONSFILE rather
> >>> than the other way round? Seems there's not much point in being able=
to
> >>> set options from make.conf unless that is so, as OPTIONSFILE would be
> >>> created more often than not whenever make(1) was invoked in the port's
> >>> directory.
> >>
> >> I think that command-line options should always override file ones, but
> >> the main problem here is that we cannot distinguish what comes from the
> >> command line from what comes from make.conf.
> >>
> >> What would sound logical to me would be the following order of precede=
nce :
> >>
> >> make.conf -> overridden by option files -> overridden by command line
> >=20
> >=20
> > This looks wrong to me.
> >=20
> > Options set in make.conf should not be overwritten by the option file
> > else you don't need etc/make.conf at all.
>=20
> Right. make.conf and options files should be flipped in the example above.
>=20
>=20
> Doug
>=20
Well the priority ordering the logical was to give the end word to the last=
user
action.
It goes from global to specific
1/ the global options (infrastructures) are applied
2/ the maintainer option (ports are applied)
3/ the user global options are applied (OPTIONS_{,UN}SET)
4/ the user ports options are applied (${UNIQUENAME}_{,UN}SET)
5/ the dialog (make config) options are applied
If that it looks not good to anyone, please comment (we can still change it=
) and
please provide arguments.
regards,
Bapt
--UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk/le+MACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzqqgCfR5aiR1kzt0M3VLNrKl/osNHL
5swAmwVGgxfbfQ9dfUmWwZecZYgghqV4
=PRTs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120623081843.GC41054>