Question about new options framework (regression?)

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 04:41:10PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

I think that is the more reasonnable, I'll add this when fully back. I was
thinking of LATE_SET and LATE_UNSET but OVERRIDE_SET and OVERRIDE_UNSET sounds
better to me.

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/20120727/04b354ca/attachment-0001.pgp