Re: port info target?

--On Monday, September 27, 2004 7:45 pm -0400 Will Barton 
<wbb4 <at> opendarwin.org> wrote:

>
> On Sep 27, 2004, at 6:49 PM, James Berry wrote:
>
>> But, but... From an ease of use perspective, having port info php tell
>> me useful information about php, including whether I've already got it
>> installed, and letting me easily compare those versions, is very
>> useful. Your argument seems to be that architecturally it's not the
>> right fit, which does quite answer the question about whether it would
>> be useful or not ;)
>
> I understand, but there is such a thing as too much information.  Not to
> mention overlap of functionality between targets (variants and
> dependencies make sense in port info, installed information really
> doesn't because that's not what you're asking for).
>
>> Is there a way you can just call into, or exec, "port -v installed
>> <portname>" and include that output as part of the port info data?
>> This might get around your architectural roadblock, and give the user
>> useful information without having to remember such an esoteric
>> incantation... ?
>
> The problem isn't architectural, it's logical.  I don't WANT to confuse
> layers, it's not that it couldn't and hasn't already been done in many
> places.
>
> I know 'port -v installed foo' isn't intuitive--that's why I'm asking
> what will be.  We have metadata for installed ports, how can we make that
> useful?

How about having "port info" finish by saying either:

        "php is not installed.", or
        "php is installed, use "port -v installed php" to find more."

as appropriate. That would address the usability issue, without creating 
information overload (which itself is a usability issue).

BTW, why can't I use "-f" with "info"?

> ...

--

-- 
Ian Eiloart
Servers Team
Sussex University ITS