On 2022-01-21 23:48 EST, Kastus Shchuka wrote:
If you want to see just the active port, you may trim down the output like this:$ port installed and active and perl5 The following ports are currently installed: perl5 @5.28.3_0+perl5_30 (active) Hope this helps to reduce confusion.
Thank you! It does!I think the [+] label, in the output of `port info <whatever>` is a confusing UI/UX choice, especially in the context of the + as an argument to `port install <port> +<port>_version` to request activation of a specific Port version.
I think displaying the default/anticipated version makes a lot of sense, I'm just saying the way that's expressed (and that the currently "active" version isn't expressed at all in *that* output) is confusing.
That is: I think using + both to say "install this version" and "regardless of what's active, our default would've been this" is a confusing conflation of symbols.
Maybe `port info …` should use another symbol (*?) there, and should display the active version by bracketing the version name?
That is, manually editing the output I posted earlier, maybe this format would be more clear:
[7] (gr@wedge:~)% port info perl5
perl5 @5.28.3 (lang)
Sub-ports: perl5.16, perl5.18, perl5.20, perl5.22, perl5.24,
perl5.26, perl5.28, perl5.30, perl5.32, perl5.34
Variants: perl5_26, [*]perl5_28, perl5_30, perl5_32,
[perl5_34]
…
* version standard, [bracketed] version active
I didn't edit the first line there because I haven't (yet) looked at the
code, so I don't understand where it's coming from. I'm confused about
why that'd read "perl5 @5.28.3 (lang)" rather than "perl5 @5.34.0
(lang)" on the system in question.
I guess that's an expression (by way of a DB query) of what a future `port install` would presume was available, but I don't think it's an accurate expression of what the installed software should expect to find out of `env perl`.
Do I continue to miss something here?(I'm amply aware of the mechanisms available to write and suggest this alternate display through a pull request. I'm sending email instead to ask whether other people agree with my UX confusion and plausible change.)
-- Gabriel Rosenkoetter (he/him) g...@eclipsed.net
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
