PortGroup directory hierarchy/priority

[Rainer Müller]

On 2016-03-31 22:36, René J. V. Bertin wrote:
> So in the end I copy my PortGroup files into the rsync-based default port tree, 
> and I don't run selfupdate anymore (I cherry-pick upgrades from the svn port 
> tree instead). I have no idea how long I'll be able to keep that up ...

Just use a subversion checkout, replace the file and leave it in
modified, uncommitted state. You will still get all other changes with
'svn up'.

> Rainer Müller wrote:
>> The lookup strategy is also the same for mirror/archive sites, 
> 
> How many ports need to change those?

For ports in external trees? All of them need to define their own
mirrors or archive sites.

>> variant descriptions, livecheck
> 
> Those are mostly defined in ports, I'd say, or in some cases in PortGroups.

I am talking about
  _resources/port1.0/variant_descriptions.conf
  _resources/port1.0/livecheck/

Please just look into the files before making assumptions.

>> . I am not sure whether it would make sense to
>> change this for all of them (for example archive sites are definitely
>> only local to a ports tree) or to introduce a special lookup just for
>> port groups...
> 
> Can you give examples? I'm having trouble imagining why there would be any need 
> to change the lookup strategy for those.

I see this as inconsistency if port groups were looked up differently
than the rest of _resources.

Apparently not even the current lookup order is documented clear enough,
so I would not want to introduce more complexity.

Rainer