Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:33:23 +0000
From:      Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>
To:        freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>, Jase Thew <jase@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: Question about new options framework (regression?)
Message-ID:  <20120727123323.GD29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
In-Reply-To: <501288BF.7010600@gmx.de>
References:  <501151A8.7000901@FreeBSD.org> <201207261441.q6QEfAY9002147@lurza.secnetix.de> <20120727094158.GC29866@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <501288BF.7010600@gmx.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--bajzpZikUji1w+G9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:25:35PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
> On 2012-07-27 11:41, 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 override
> >>  > 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
>=20
> Why reinvent the wheel ???
>=20
> The vars -DWITH(OUT)_FOO is something already well known and documented, =
the wrapper is already in bsd.options.mk (last entry) but it broken at the =
moment.
>=20

Because WITH(OUT) is inconsistent and is dependant from how the maintainer =
is
writting its ports: does he check for both WITH_ and !WITHOUT_ for example,=
 does
he check for only one of them?

One of the reason of the new options framework is to get rid of WITH_ and
WITHOUT_ because it is not consistent never work the same over the ports and
that the user have to check the Makefile itself to determine if what is che=
cked
is WITH_ or WITHOUT_

regards,
Bapt

--bajzpZikUji1w+G9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlASipMACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzdlQCeP+laNnq9MyBqbcWoE/BZFMbJ
xOQAoJYjz/yiAiMaA3Bvku7o8/tbwaaz
=jw++
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bajzpZikUji1w+G9--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120727123323.GD29866>