Question about new options framework (regression?)

[Olli Hauer]

On 2012-07-26 00:57, 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 <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?
> 


The power of make.conf was to specify / overwrite a dedicated behavior (same like src.conf) globally or per directory regardless what is defined in options.

A valid use case was given with shell/zsh.

Say someone don't want to have DB-A in the network (because of the license ...) and set global without DB-A and use DB-B instead, once there is an options file you loose.

I have make.conf in svn and from there it is deployed to all systems to make sure they end up as specified, defining PORT_DBDIR=/dev/null is not handy.

Again, how would you overwrite from a slave an option which was set once before with make config on the master port? (with working example please)

Additional I suspect a command arg is more specific then a option which was set once.

--
Regards,
olli