Question about new options framework (regression?)

[olli hauer]

On 2012-07-27 11:41, 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.
> 

Why reinvent the wheel ???

The vars -DWITH(OUT)_FOO is something already well known and documented, the wrapper is already in bsd.options.mk (last entry) but it broken at the moment.

--
Regards,
olli