PortGroup directory hierarchy/priority
René J.V. Bertin
rjvbertin at gmail.com
Sat Apr 2 11:48:14 PDT 2016
On Saturday April 02 2016 19:27:38 Rainer Müller wrote:
> This is not in any way slower than rsync. With no actual changes, a
Maybe not if you do it very regularly. That quickly changes once you start increasing the intervals, in my experience.
> > It seems to me that it is above all confusing that _resources are looked up differently than the rest of a ports tree
> And it would be even more confusing if every single file in _resources
> used a different strategy.
Was I proposing that?
> # sources.conf
> rsync://rsync.macports.org/release/tarballs/ports.tar [default]
> Now as soon as a port is added to the official tree my unsubmitted
> Portfile will no longer be used. Does that mean port groups in
> unsubmitted-ports would never be used at all?
Let me return the question: would you be surprised if port groups from the latter were overridden/masked by port groups of the same name in the former (official) tree - just like ports are?
I guess that typically, if a port comes with a PortGroup for use by other ports that are somehow dependents, you'd commit both the port and the PortGroup.
> I am not saying this cannot be changed, but we need a plan how it should
> be handled for each of the files in _resources. Afterwards it could be
> implemented, but it looks complicated to me.
I think we agree that there's no need to change anything for the other files in _resources, only for PortGroups.
Maybe it would become easier conceptually if PortGroups were moved to a different location outside of _resources (preferably only 1 level down from the tree's root)?
More information about the macports-dev