On 2016-07-02 08:51, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jul 1, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>
>> Anyway, in order to let 'port install' suggest candidates or
>> alternatives based on binary names, we first need a database of
>> port contents.
>>
>> This use case would be an example what such
On Jul 1, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
> Anyway, in order to let 'port install' suggest candidates or
> alternatives based on binary names, we first need a database of port
> contents.
>
> This use case would be an example what such an index could be used for.
> I would also say that
On 2016-07-01 12:15, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>>
>> Even with that, the proposal would not work for everything. There is no
>> port that provides a 'python' binary. The GNU coreutils are provided
>> with a 'g' prefix, in order not to override
On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>
> Even with that, the proposal would not work for everything. There is no
> port that provides a 'python' binary. The GNU coreutils are provided
> with a 'g' prefix, in order not to override standard system utils by
> default. Searching for the
On 2016-06-29 19:39, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> The `--long_description` modifier is just the field as written in the
>> Portfile.
>>
>> Regarding searching for binaries in ports, this is a completely different
>> problem that would be addressed by having an offline index of port
>> contents
