Question about new options framework (regression?)

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:22:24AM +0200, Olli Hauer wrote:
> 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 at 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 at 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?

Sorry I misunderstood Eitan mail :)
> 
> > 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.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20120726/6c815bbc/attachment-0001.pgp