From ohauer@FreeBSD.org  Wed Jul 25 21:47:53 2012
Return-Path: <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBBB1065670
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:47:52 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ohauer@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA27D8FC0C
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:47:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6PLlqdb091921
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:47:52 GMT
	(envelope-from ohauer@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from ohauer@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q6PLlqoI091920;
	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:47:52 GMT
	(envelope-from ohauer)
Message-Id: <201207252147.q6PLlqoI091920@freefall.freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:47:52 GMT
From: Olli Hauer <ohauer@freebsd.org>
Reply-To: Olli Hauer <ohauer@freebsd.org>
To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Cc:
Subject: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and command line args to apply
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.113
X-GNATS-Notify:

>Number:         170180
>Category:       ports
>Synopsis:       [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and command line args to apply
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       high
>Responsible:    bapt
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Jul 25 21:50:06 UTC 2012
>Closed-Date:    Sat Apr 05 20:14:47 UTC 2014
>Last-Modified:  Sat Apr 05 20:14:47 UTC 2014
>Originator:     Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>
>Release:        FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 amd64
>Organization:
>Environment:



>Description:
The new options framework has a major bug.

If for a port "make config" was already done, make.conf and command line params are ignored.

To restore the old behavior simply swap the following block in bsd.options.mk.


### convert WITH and WITHOUT found in make.conf or reloaded from old optionsfile
.for opt in ${ALL_OPTIONS}
...

## Finish by using the options set by the port config dialog, if any
.  for opt in ${OPTIONS_FILE_SET}


Issue reported already on ports@

Additional SLAVE ports can no longer overwrite options set in the MASTER port if "make config" was already done.
If this is possible, please extend the wiki with an working example.


The patch fix only the make.conf / command param issu.

>How-To-Repeat:

$ cd shells/zsh
make config => deselect STATIC

$ make showconfig | grep STATIC
     STATIC=off: Build static executable/libraries

$ make -V LDFLAGS
 -L/usr/local/lib -rpath=/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib

$ make -V LDFLAGS WITH_STATIC=true ( or $ OPTIONS_SET="STATIC" make showconfig )
 -L/usr/local/lib -rpath=/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib

Expected result:
 -L/usr/local/lib -rpath=/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib -static


>Fix:

--- bsd.options.mk.diff begins here ---
Index: bsd.options.mk
===================================================================
--- bsd.options.mk	(revision 301530)
+++ bsd.options.mk	(working copy)
@@ -173,17 +173,6 @@
 .  include "${OPTIONSFILE}.local"
 .  endif
 
-### convert WITH and WITHOUT found in make.conf or reloaded from old optionsfile
-.for opt in ${ALL_OPTIONS}
-.if defined(WITH_${opt})
-PORT_OPTIONS+=	${opt}
-PORT_OPTIONS:=	${PORT_OPTIONS:O:u}
-.endif
-.if defined(WITHOUT_${opt})
-PORT_OPTIONS:=	${PORT_OPTIONS:N${opt}}
-.endif
-.endfor
-
 ## Finish by using the options set by the port config dialog, if any
 .  for opt in ${OPTIONS_FILE_SET}
 .    if !empty(COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:M${opt})
@@ -199,6 +188,17 @@
 
 .endif
 
+### convert WITH and WITHOUT found in make.conf or reloaded from old optionsfile
+.for opt in ${ALL_OPTIONS}
+.if defined(WITH_${opt})
+PORT_OPTIONS+=	${opt}
+PORT_OPTIONS:=	${PORT_OPTIONS:O:u}
+.endif
+.if defined(WITHOUT_${opt})
+PORT_OPTIONS:=	${PORT_OPTIONS:N${opt}}
+.endif
+.endfor
+
 ## Now some compatibility
 .if empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS)
 NOPORTDOCS=	yes
--- bsd.options.mk.diff ends here ---


>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->bapt 
Responsible-Changed-By: bapt 
Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Sep 10 16:29:57 UTC 2012 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
Take for testing/exp-run 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170180 

From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
To: bug-followup@freebsd.org, ohauer@freebsd.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and
 command line args to apply
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:42:56 +0200

 As I already said earlier, what you called the old behaviour is not
 really the old behaviour, it was really dependant on how the
 maintainer did check WITH_ or WITHOUT_ and lead to something
 inconsistent decause the user might not know which is the one tested:
 WITH_? WITHOUT_? both?
 
 I prefer the approach that seemed to have a consensus earlier?
 
 http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2012-August/077619.html
 
 In particular this patch
 http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/OVERRIDE_BLA.diff
 
 What do you think?
 
 (Sorry for having been late working on that)
 regards,
 Bapt

From: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>
To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org, ohauer@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and command
 line args to apply
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:51:02 +0200

 On 2012-09-18 22:42, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
 > As I already said earlier, what you called the old behaviour is not
 > really the old behaviour, it was really dependant on how the
 > maintainer did check WITH_ or WITHOUT_ and lead to something
 > inconsistent decause the user might not know which is the one tested:
 > WITH_? WITHOUT_? both?
 > 
 > I prefer the approach that seemed to have a consensus earlier?
 > 
 > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2012-August/077619.html
 > 
 > In particular this patch
 > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/OVERRIDE_BLA.diff
 > 
 > What do you think?
 > 
 > (Sorry for having been late working on that)
 
 No issue, we are all busy ...
 
 I haven't tested your patch until now, but if it works I'm fine with it.
 
 Do you think it's possible to find a shorter name for the parameters?
 (for example only SET/UNSET)
 For the code the parameters are self speaking, but I find them quite to
 long to type, and to not easy to remember for users.
 
 One of my main issue with the breakage of command args was what become
 a true nightmare. After porting apache to options NG I had to answer
 on the lists and in private for over a week questions why command
 args are no longer working ...
 
 Anyway I think this parameters are also handy in Makefiles.
 Until now the UNSET and EXCLUDE do not work as expected in any situation
 after including bsd.options.mk and we have to use BROKE/IGNORE on places
 where we could handle conflicting parameters before opt NG.
 
 --
 regards,
 olli

From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
To: Olli Hauer <ohauer@freebsd.org>
Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and
 command line args to apply
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:23:53 +0200

 --6zdv2QT/q3FMhpsV
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 Content-Disposition: inline
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:51:02PM +0200, Olli Hauer wrote:
 > On 2012-09-18 22:42, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
 > > As I already said earlier, what you called the old behaviour is not
 > > really the old behaviour, it was really dependant on how the
 > > maintainer did check WITH_ or WITHOUT_ and lead to something
 > > inconsistent decause the user might not know which is the one tested:
 > > WITH_? WITHOUT_? both?
 > >=20
 > > I prefer the approach that seemed to have a consensus earlier?
 > >=20
 > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2012-August/077619.html
 > >=20
 > > In particular this patch
 > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/OVERRIDE_BLA.diff
 > >=20
 > > What do you think?
 > >=20
 > > (Sorry for having been late working on that)
 >=20
 > No issue, we are all busy ...
 >=20
 > I haven't tested your patch until now, but if it works I'm fine with it.
 >=20
 > Do you think it's possible to find a shorter name for the parameters?
 > (for example only SET/UNSET)
 > For the code the parameters are self speaking, but I find them quite to
 > long to type, and to not easy to remember for users.
 
 Do you have any propositions? :D I'm all open for them, I'm not very imagin=
 ative
 usually for this.
 >=20
 > One of my main issue with the breakage of command args was what become
 > a true nightmare. After porting apache to options NG I had to answer
 > on the lists and in private for over a week questions why command
 > args are no longer working ...
 
 Yes I understand and sorry about that.
 
 >=20
 > Anyway I think this parameters are also handy in Makefiles.
 > Until now the UNSET and EXCLUDE do not work as expected in any situation
 > after including bsd.options.mk and we have to use BROKE/IGNORE on places
 > where we could handle conflicting parameters before opt NG.
 
 Do you have an explicit case? a port I can look at?
 
 Maybe we can find something to improve the situation?
 
 regards,
 Bapt
 
 --6zdv2QT/q3FMhpsV
 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
 
 iEYEARECAAYFAlBY9HkACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExE3ACcDFjM69S5QzxC+FEOm+1kmzJh
 LUsAnRL3RGHtiaL2CRUqqnestjcwkqfR
 =scWh
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 --6zdv2QT/q3FMhpsV--

From: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>
To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
Cc: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>, bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and command
 line args to apply
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:16:03 +0200

 > Do you think it's possible to find a shorter name for the parameters?
 > (for example only SET/UNSET)
 > For the code the parameters are self speaking, but I find them quite to
 > long to type, and to not easy to remember for users.
 
 Do you have any propositions? :D I'm all open for them, I'm not very imaginative
 usually for this.
 > 
 > One of my main issue with the breakage of command args was what become
 > a true nightmare. After porting apache to options NG I had to answer
 > on the lists and in private for over a week questions why command
 > args are no longer working ...
 
 Yes I understand and sorry about that.
 
 > 
 > Anyway I think this parameters are also handy in Makefiles.
 > Until now the UNSET and EXCLUDE do not work as expected in any situation
 > after including bsd.options.mk and we have to use BROKE/IGNORE on places
 > where we could handle conflicting parameters before opt NG.
 
 Do you have an explicit case? a port I can look at?
 Maybe we can find something to improve the situation?
 
 Yes, I have.
 
 For apache22 we have slave ports like event, worker, peruser and itk.
 From the Makefile of the slave port (event/worker) I can IGNORE/UNSET
 for example CGI and enable instead CGID but not in the master port.
 
 In the apache22 port I know the MPM model only on late step, and there
 the IGNORE/UNSET/SET is not working in case an option file already exist.
 Issue here comes mostly from tools like portupgrade where the user used
 command args the before.
 
 In the past the port had only one options file for all ports and changed
 CGI/CGID silently per MPM model, I tried to solve this with dedicated options
 file but it seems tools like portupgrade ignoring them.
 
 With apache24 we will get it even more difficult with a combination
 of (only) three MPM models which can be build as shared/preferred/statically
 (plus having ~120+ apache modules and various build options).
 
 So for example I want to disable CGI in case apache24 builds with
 static MPM worker/event but not if we build with shared MPM's then we have
 to enable both CGI and CGID if on them was chosen else changing the MPM
 breaks functionality.
 
 See a early prototype for apache24
 http://people.freebsd.org/~ohauer/diffs/apache/apache24_prototype.shar
 
 
 PS:
 Please keep my private address on CC, gnats forwarding does not always work.
 
 --
 Regards,
 olli

From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
To: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>
Cc: Olli Hauer <ohauer@freebsd.org>, bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and
 command line args to apply
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:24:03 +0200

 --MziYxCZO8WOaTd4I
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 Content-Disposition: inline
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:16:03PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
 > > Do you think it's possible to find a shorter name for the parameters?
 > > (for example only SET/UNSET)
 > > For the code the parameters are self speaking, but I find them quite to
 > > long to type, and to not easy to remember for users.
 >=20
 > Do you have any propositions? :D I'm all open for them, I'm not very imag=
 inative
 > usually for this.
 > >=20
 
 Let's try to fix this first :)
 
 What about:
 LATE_SET/UNSET
 CMD_SET/UNSET
 
 ?
 > > One of my main issue with the breakage of command args was what become
 > > a true nightmare. After porting apache to options NG I had to answer
 > > on the lists and in private for over a week questions why command
 > > args are no longer working ...
 >=20
 > Yes I understand and sorry about that.
 >=20
 > >=20
 > > Anyway I think this parameters are also handy in Makefiles.
 > > Until now the UNSET and EXCLUDE do not work as expected in any situation
 > > after including bsd.options.mk and we have to use BROKE/IGNORE on places
 > > where we could handle conflicting parameters before opt NG.
 >=20
 > Do you have an explicit case? a port I can look at?
 > Maybe we can find something to improve the situation?
 >=20
 > Yes, I have.
 >=20
 > For apache22 we have slave ports like event, worker, peruser and itk.
 > From the Makefile of the slave port (event/worker) I can IGNORE/UNSET
 > for example CGI and enable instead CGID but not in the master port.
 >=20
 > In the apache22 port I know the MPM model only on late step, and there
 > the IGNORE/UNSET/SET is not working in case an option file already exist.
 > Issue here comes mostly from tools like portupgrade where the user used
 > command args the before.
 >=20
 > In the past the port had only one options file for all ports and changed
 > CGI/CGID silently per MPM model, I tried to solve this with dedicated opt=
 ions
 > file but it seems tools like portupgrade ignoring them.
 >=20
 > With apache24 we will get it even more difficult with a combination
 > of (only) three MPM models which can be build as shared/preferred/statica=
 lly
 > (plus having ~120+ apache modules and various build options).
 >=20
 > So for example I want to disable CGI in case apache24 builds with
 > static MPM worker/event but not if we build with shared MPM's then we have
 > to enable both CGI and CGID if on them was chosen else changing the MPM
 > breaks functionality.
 >=20
 > See a early prototype for apache24
 > http://people.freebsd.org/~ohauer/diffs/apache/apache24_prototype.shar
 >=20
 
 I hadn't found time to get into it yet but I will.
 
 regards,
 Bapt
 
 --MziYxCZO8WOaTd4I
 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
 
 iEYEARECAAYFAlBf/IMACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ez/0gCgmltTo0Pjw+0j0OYsrVh6N1Ih
 h/YAoKkpmDDuwiuDa9yjj2R7DXvm9FZW
 =OL9/
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 --MziYxCZO8WOaTd4I--

From: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>
To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
Cc: Olli Hauer <ohauer@freebsd.org>, bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and command
 line args to apply
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:49:06 +0200

 On 2012-09-24 08:24, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
 > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:16:03PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
 >>> Do you think it's possible to find a shorter name for the parameters?
 >>> (for example only SET/UNSET)
 >>> For the code the parameters are self speaking, but I find them quite to
 >>> long to type, and to not easy to remember for users.
 >>
 >> Do you have any propositions? :D I'm all open for them, I'm not very imaginative
 >> usually for this.
 >>>
 > 
 > Let's try to fix this first :)
 > 
 > What about:
 > LATE_SET/UNSET
 > CMD_SET/UNSET
 > 
 
 This sounds OK to me :)
 
 --
 Regards,
 olli
 

From: dfilter@FreeBSD.ORG (dfilter service)
To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: ports/170180: commit references a PR
Date: Fri,  5 Oct 2012 13:43:59 +0000 (UTC)

 Author: bapt
 Date: Fri Oct  5 13:43:45 2012
 New Revision: 305300
 URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/305300
 
 Log:
   Options can now be overridden from command line using
   WITH/WITHOUT.
   
   Name has been proprosed by gahr during brainstorming on ports@
   
   PR:		ports/170180
   Submitted by:	ohauer
 
 Modified:
   head/Mk/bsd.options.mk
 
 Modified: head/Mk/bsd.options.mk
 ==============================================================================
 --- head/Mk/bsd.options.mk	Fri Oct  5 12:45:19 2012	(r305299)
 +++ head/Mk/bsd.options.mk	Fri Oct  5 13:43:45 2012	(r305300)
 @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@
  # OTPIONS_MULTI_${NAME}		- List of OPTIONS grouped as multiple-choice
  #				(for the multi named as ${NAME} as defined in 
  #				OPTIONS_MULTI)
 +# WITH				Set options from the command line
 +# WITHOUT			Unset options from the command line
  
  ##
  # Set all the options available for the ports, beginning with the
 @@ -199,6 +201,19 @@ PORT_OPTIONS:=	${PORT_OPTIONS:N${opt}}
  
  .endif
  
 +## Cmdline always win over the rest
 +.for opt in ${WITH}
 +.  if !empty(COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:M${opt})
 +PORT_OPTIONS+=	${opt}
 +.  endif
 +.endfor
 +PORT_OPTIONS:=	${PORT_OPTIONS:O:u}
 +
 +.for opt in ${WITHOUT}
 +PORT_OPTIONS:=	${PORT_OPTIONS:N${opt}}
 +.endfor
 +.undef opt
 +
  ## Now some compatibility
  .if empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS)
  NOPORTDOCS=	yes
 _______________________________________________
 svn-ports-all@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-all
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-ports-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
 

From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
To: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>
Cc: Olli Hauer <ohauer@freebsd.org>, bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and
 command line args to apply
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:57:11 +0200

 --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 Content-Disposition: inline
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:16:03PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
 > > Do you think it's possible to find a shorter name for the parameters?
 > > (for example only SET/UNSET)
 > > For the code the parameters are self speaking, but I find them quite to
 > > long to type, and to not easy to remember for users.
 >=20
 > Do you have any propositions? :D I'm all open for them, I'm not very imag=
 inative
 > usually for this.
 > >=20
 > > One of my main issue with the breakage of command args was what become
 > > a true nightmare. After porting apache to options NG I had to answer
 > > on the lists and in private for over a week questions why command
 > > args are no longer working ...
 >=20
 > Yes I understand and sorry about that.
 >=20
 > >=20
 > > Anyway I think this parameters are also handy in Makefiles.
 > > Until now the UNSET and EXCLUDE do not work as expected in any situation
 > > after including bsd.options.mk and we have to use BROKE/IGNORE on places
 > > where we could handle conflicting parameters before opt NG.
 >=20
 > Do you have an explicit case? a port I can look at?
 > Maybe we can find something to improve the situation?
 >=20
 > Yes, I have.
 >=20
 > For apache22 we have slave ports like event, worker, peruser and itk.
 > From the Makefile of the slave port (event/worker) I can IGNORE/UNSET
 > for example CGI and enable instead CGID but not in the master port.
 >=20
 > In the apache22 port I know the MPM model only on late step, and there
 > the IGNORE/UNSET/SET is not working in case an option file already exist.
 > Issue here comes mostly from tools like portupgrade where the user used
 > command args the before.
 >=20
 > In the past the port had only one options file for all ports and changed
 > CGI/CGID silently per MPM model, I tried to solve this with dedicated opt=
 ions
 > file but it seems tools like portupgrade ignoring them.
 >=20
 > With apache24 we will get it even more difficult with a combination
 > of (only) three MPM models which can be build as shared/preferred/statica=
 lly
 > (plus having ~120+ apache modules and various build options).
 >=20
 > So for example I want to disable CGI in case apache24 builds with
 > static MPM worker/event but not if we build with shared MPM's then we have
 > to enable both CGI and CGID if on them was chosen else changing the MPM
 > breaks functionality.
 >=20
 > See a early prototype for apache24
 > http://people.freebsd.org/~ohauer/diffs/apache/apache24_prototype.shar
 >=20
 >=20
 > PS:
 > Please keep my private address on CC, gnats forwarding does not always wo=
 rk.
 >=20
 > --
 > Regards,
 > olli
 
 Setting from the command line is done, but for the rest it seems like you n=
 eed
 something much more complexe/smarter to handle unusally complex possible
 combinaison.
 
 I'll keep the bug open for the last part.
 
 regards,
 Bapt
 
 --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt
 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
 
 iEYEARECAAYFAlBu5zcACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExXlgCeLRkS59yFVwHmv7iTmLnq6BLI
 e/UAoKc0qCIExT7kLW4KRX0meK8cqDcC
 =8oqa
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt--

From: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>
To: bug-followup@freebsd.org
Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, 
 Olli Hauer <ohauer@freebsd.org>,
 Olli Hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and command
 line args to apply
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:06:36 +0200

 On 2012-10-05 15:57, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
 > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:16:03PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
 
 ...
 
 > Setting from the command line is done, but for the rest it seems like you need
 > something much more complexe/smarter to handle unusally complex possible
 > combinaison.
 > 
 > I'll keep the bug open for the last part.
 > 
 > regards,
 > Bapt
 > 
 
 Thanks for the update,
 
 I will try to find some time this weekend to see if I can find a safe
 way to handle the outstanding requirements in bsd.apache.mk or in the
 apache ports.
 
 regards,
 olli

From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
To: bug-followup@freebsd.org, ohauer@freebsd.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: ports/170180: [patch] Mk/bsd.options.mk allow make.conf and
 command line args to apply
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 00:47:33 +0100

 --001a11c1d71c6609e004f0d41a2f
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 
 Is there something left to do regarding this bug?
 
 --001a11c1d71c6609e004f0d41a2f
 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
 
 <div dir="ltr">Is there something left to do regarding this bug?<br></div>
 
 --001a11c1d71c6609e004f0d41a2f--
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: ohauer 
State-Changed-When: Sat Apr 5 20:13:12 UTC 2014 
State-Changed-Why:  
> Is there something left to do regarding this bug? 

No, the new framework can handle this meanwhile better then the old one 

Thanks! 


http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170180 
>Unformatted:
