Question about new options framework (regression?)

[Oliver Fromme]

Jase Thew wrote:
 > On 25/07/2012 23:57, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
 > > 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?
 > 
 > 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.

I agree with Jase.

Actually I'm not sure if PORTS_DBDIR should override make.conf
or vice versa.  I don't know which one should be regarded as
more specific.

But anything specified on the commandline is definitely more
specific than PORTS_DBDIR and should override anything else.

One way to do that would be to introduce another pair of
variables, e.g. OVERRIDE_SET and OVERRIDE_UNSET, so you could
type:  make OVERRIDE_SET=STATIC

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M.
Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606,  Geschäftsfuehrung:
secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün-
chen, HRB 125758,  Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart

FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr:  http://www.secnetix.de/bsd

"C++ is the only current language making COBOL look good."
        -- Bertrand Meyer