From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 26 02:41:34 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA9E1065672 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:41:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com) Received: from mail-gh0-f182.google.com (mail-gh0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFF88FC0C for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:41:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ghbz22 with SMTP id z22so1748911ghb.13 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:41:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=DFYRIPdglzTQsAsCvqvTdmW0+I5He97v4VrW9lzWgnU=; b=aNKyyPGCHzLQ+5cTxDhPAm15VIi1MUGGSuEDpeX9h3Aip/rAE+7tDEeu/hWobP8JO/ tXe3ebAPizMGa8cLsZIuwHxGKrEhlFyueZB5GVZrKibSzKJGCdJo1/VuPXSMjMc+uzrH BfmrdM5MoXbqFj3EqVACHi0Hwd9EoTADrDJdo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=DFYRIPdglzTQsAsCvqvTdmW0+I5He97v4VrW9lzWgnU=; b=lrWiZus2pSGvC/+HofYYSGIjG+glJEoaInBldnplyuIePlHLSuRJQ/YLE8YoaNussP pr9tli/jeFnedLHxZx47o7vDoJYuzvnZmrFp0rtk/K+8Zxf3x4t5gi840Mm8IrPbPsYk /Riqk2itCSNmXGHfVCdIkX1hsESZSepZrFGxXkpKE7xC3HbAnsU7sW8D1qPDUxKX23Ts JjLDE6S7OWmGqcSzRUDOVBFCXR20gVvhQIkrpeP6+03r5bH5qT21fKnnWyNdKDxVlgOl 9LYjZepBSQ6DTO7XBv10bR+kw1BwWqVc/ChvdVBoYc7Ob6QK5OG+gBXsEG2EBk4PnneD t6gg== Received: by 10.50.46.132 with SMTP id v4mr407264igm.25.1343270486589; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:41:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.78.69 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:40:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120725225736.GD13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20120725155932.GA13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <201207251709.q6PH9mpJ086314@lurza.secnetix.de> <5010640B.6070107@FreeBSD.org> <20120725225736.GD13771@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> From: Eitan Adler Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:40:56 -0700 Message-ID: To: Baptiste Daroussin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQllvaRKZptflvzt1mnbBcH4pRZsWB7JpeHkV/YABubex0xTy9Ojb6d/aqsNDdYyJz4WBeWb Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Scot Hetzel , Oliver Fromme , freebsd-ports Subject: Re: Question about new options framework (regression?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:41:34 -0000 On 25 July 2012 15:57, Baptiste Daroussin 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 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