Question about new options framework (regression?)

[Jase Thew]

On 25/07/2012 23:57, 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?
> 
> regards,
> Bapt
> 

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 reasons
you're likely to be passing them is to override any saved settings in
the first place.

Please consider reverting back to the established and I daresay,
expected behaviour.

Regards,

Jase.

-- 
Jase Thew
jase at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD Ports Committer


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 727 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20120726/199ac924/signature-0001.pgp