PortGroup directory hierarchy/priority

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Friday April 01 2016 15:18:08 Rainer Müller wrote:
> On 2016-03-31 22:36, René J. V. Bertin wrote:

> 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'.

True. Still, not ideal (and svn is SLOW).

> > 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.

If they're using mirrors or archive sites that aren't predefined, no? I'm not sure about archive sites (where archivefetch downloads from?) but I often see my ports attempt to download things from MacPorts mirrors rather than trying the master_sites first.

> I am talking about
>   _resources/port1.0/variant_descriptions.conf
>   _resources/port1.0/livecheck/
> 
> Please just look into the files before making assumptions.

Ok, so those seem to be additional mechanisms to define variants and livecheck settings for a whole port tree.
Can the settings from those files be overridden by a PortGroup?

> 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.

It seems to me that it is above all confusing that _resources are looked up differently than the rest of a ports tree.

R.