From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 26 05:22:32 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 A5C01106566B;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:22:32 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ohauer@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from p578be941.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (p578be941.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
	[87.139.233.65])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58AE38FC0A;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:22:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (cde1100.uni.vrs [192.168.0.100])
	(Authenticated sender: ohauer)
	by p578be941.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 869E22089A; 
	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:22:26 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5010D410.8090102@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:22:24 +0200
From: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
	rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>
References: <20120725155932.GA13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
	<201207251709.q6PH9mpJ086314@lurza.secnetix.de>
	<CACdU+f_RW6eWdW9sZsTDfx7bz7L54u5C6qj-e9cBy714WM6KQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5010640B.6070107@FreeBSD.org>
	<20120725225736.GD13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
	<CAF6rxgkYZAMWnNXLEL7ye1A+o_JWs++RPRDBjMnLMiDte_Ag1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120726045555.GE13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120726045555.GE13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>,
	Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>
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 <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:22:32 -0000

On 2012-07-26 06:55, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:40:56PM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> On 25 July 2012 15:57, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:24:27PM +0200, Olli Hauer wrote:
>>>> On 2012-07-25 20:18, Scot Hetzel wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The following diff will restore the old behavior so make.conf and command params have priority.
>>>> (Place the make.conf part after the OPTIONS_FILE_SET part)
>>>>
>>>> Until now I cannot see why the OPTIONS file should always win.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> An option specified on the command line is more specific and should
>> have priority over saved values or configuration files.
>>
>> -- 
>> Eitan Adler
> 
> You can already do that:
> OPTIONSFILE=/my/path/to/options make config
> 

Are you kidding?

> because the priority goes to global to specific and the most specific is the options file.

I suspect no one wants to maintain different option files.
As shown options file is not the most specific one, it's the command arg.