From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 26 14:41:29 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 51658106566C; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:41:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49AD8FC0A; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:41:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q6QEfAwP002150; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:41:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id q6QEfAY9002147; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:41:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) From: Oliver Fromme Message-Id: <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de> To: jase@FreeBSD.org (Jase Thew) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:41:10 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <501151A8.7000901@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:41:26 +0200 (CEST) Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Baptiste Daroussin , Scot Hetzel , 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 14:41:29 -0000 Jase Thew wrote: > On 25/07/2012 23:57, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > 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? > > 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 reasons > you're likely to be passing them is to override any saved settings in > the first place. > > 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=STATIC Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "C++ is the only current language making COBOL look good." -- Bertrand Meyer