I have no idea of the difficulty of such a change, but it would be interesting if Portfiles contained a release date, and the database of installed ports had both a copy of that for any given installed version, and perhaps the date of installation.
> On Jan 22, 2022, at 10:22, Gabriel Rosenkoetter <g...@eclipsed.net> wrote: > > On 2022-01-22 09:14 EST, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Jan 22, 2022, at 01:15, Gabriel Rosenkoetter wrote: >>> On 2022-01-22 01:28 EST, Kastus Shchuka wrote: >>>> $ port echo installed and perl5 >>>> perl5 @5.26.1_0+perl5_28 >>>> perl5 @5.28.3_0+perl5_28 >>>> perl5 @5.28.3_0+perl5_30 >>> You see how this is at best confusing and at worst user-antagonistic, right? >> I'm sorry you feel antagonized; I'm sure that was nobody's intention. > > Wait, wait, I take the antagonistic part of that back, in light of your other > response: > > On 2022-01-22 09:11 EST, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > You can use any action you want; it doesn't have to be echo. For example, > > typically you might want "port installed active". > > This is the output I was looking for: > > [15] (gr@wedge:~)% port installed active and perl5 > The following ports are currently installed: > perl5 @5.28.3_0+perl5_34 (active) > [16] (gr@wedge:~)% > > That is, it shows the perl5 port version as well as the "what Perl will I get > if I run `perl`" version. > > After this discussion, I understand clearly which version means what in > there, and I see how the query language has been designed to be at least a > little friendly to the non-programmer. > > (I think this is probably still a pretty steep learning curve for a new user, > but I don't have any better suggestions.) > >> This is one of the aforementioned challenges/complexities with providing >> multiple versions of a port. > > Heard. > >> If we stick with multiple perl versions, and the perl5 port to create the >> symlinks, then maybe it would indeed help reduce some confusion to change >> the perl5 port's version to 1.0, or a YYYYMMDD date, or anything else that >> is not the version of one of the perl ports. > > I realize that I just sent an email stating the opposite, and I maintain that > "1.0" is a bad idea (because it'll eventually climb to being confusingly > similar with actual Perl version numbers), but using a POSIX date sounds very > promising to me, and would avoid showing, as above, both "5.28.3" and > (something that expands to:) "5.34.0" applied to the same port at the same > time. > > -- > Gabriel Rosenkoetter (he/him) > g...@eclipsed.net -- eMail: mailto:rlha...@smart.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
