optionsng and tinderbox?

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 06:14:00PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 10:44, Olli Hauer wrote:
> > On 2012-06-21 11:26, Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:28:26 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote
> >>
> >>> [...]
> >>> Shouldn't make.conf / commandline settings override OPTIONSFILE rather
> >>> than the other way round?  Seems there's not much point in being able to
> >>> set options from make.conf unless that is so, as OPTIONSFILE would be
> >>> created more often than not whenever make(1) was invoked in the port's
> >>> directory.
> >>
> >> I think that command-line options should always override file ones, but
> >> the main problem here is that we cannot distinguish what comes from the
> >> command line from what comes from make.conf.
> >>
> >> What would sound logical to me would be the following order of precedence :
> >>
> >> make.conf -> overridden by option files -> overridden by command line
> > 
> > 
> > This looks wrong to me.
> > 
> > Options set in make.conf should not be overwritten by the option file
> > else you don't need etc/make.conf at all.
> 
> Right. make.conf and options files should be flipped in the example above.
> 
> 
> Doug
> 
Well the priority ordering the logical was to give the end word to the last user
action.

It goes from global to specific

1/ the global options (infrastructures) are applied
2/ the maintainer option (ports are applied)
3/ the user global options are applied (OPTIONS_{,UN}SET)
4/ the user ports options are applied (${UNIQUENAME}_{,UN}SET)
5/ the dialog (make config) options are applied

If that it looks not good to anyone, please comment (we can still change it) and
please provide arguments.

regards,
Bapt
-------------- 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/20120623/e8debca5/attachment.pgp