On 27/07/2012 10:41, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > 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. >
What use-case are you thinking of that requires the ability for saved config to override manually specified config? If there isn't a compelling reason for this, then I'd personally much rather see the original behaviour restored rather than adding another two variables. Regards, Jase. -- Jase Thew j...@freebsd.org FreeBSD Ports Committer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
