Question about new options framework (regression?)

Baptiste Daroussin bapt at freebsd.org
Thu Jul 26 04:55:58 UTC 2012


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

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/20120726/96a8beb4/attachment-0001.pgp


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list