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
pgpuNz8yPPm6M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
