Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:26:46 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Do we need a new major category (latex)? Message-ID: <20040128142646.1542ee19@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <4017AFA4.4090801@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20040127145518.33cd1648@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20040127234019.GA70137@xor.obsecurity.org> <4016FAEA.8010308@fillmore-labs.com> <20040128123440.2e0e1389@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <4017AFA4.4090801@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:48:36 +0100
Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> wrote:
> Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:57:30 +0100
> > Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> wrote:
> >
> > [ls -1 vs. ls -d]
> >
> >>Otherwise you'll count files, CVS directories and empty lines. We have
> >>'only' 216 ports in print...
> >
> > Argh... yes. I make this error _every_ time. In case I want to see the
> > files I notice it immediately, but in this case I just piped the output
> > into wc without looking at the output.
> >
> > The benchmark category has 30 entries (ls /usr/ports/benchmarks | grep
> > -vE '(pkg|CVS|Makefile)' |wc -l)
> This is true, but no LaTeX benchmarks...
Yes, it was just an example of a major category with less ports than
tex-ports.
> and there are 42 packages with latex in
> > the name (ls -d */*latex*| grep -vE '(pkg|CVS|Makefile)' |wc -l),
> You don't need the grep here, since pkg|CVS|Makefile doesn't match
> *latex*, and you may want to count mylatexpkg.
I just used the history of the shell, nothing more happened here. But
I've tested it before sending the last mail, I've checked for pkg and
CVS after getting the count with wc like this:
---snip---
% ls -d /usr/ports/*/*tex* | grep pkg
---snip---
> > and 36
> > additional portnames with "tex" but without "text" (yes, this excludes
> > texproc: ls -d */*tex*| grep -vE '(pkg|CVS|Makefile|text)' |wc -l),
> the problem with all that number games is that I get
> distfiles/latex_[...].tar.gz
---snip---
% ll /usr/ports/distfiles/*latex*
zsh: no matches found: /usr/ports/distfiles/*latex*
% ll /usr/ports/distfiles/*tex*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 5.5M 27 Mai 2003 /usr/ports/distfiles/gettext-0.12.1.tar.gz
% ll /usr/ports/distfiles/*tex* | grep -vE '(pkg|CVS|Makefile|text)'
---snip---
> in ls -d */*latex*. May I suggest:
>
> awk -F\| ' \
> BEGIN {IGNORECASE=1} \
> $1 ~ /(La|te)TeX|TeX[^ti]/ \
> ' INDEX | wc -l
>
> > so I think this is still a good idea (we don't have teTeX and similar ports
> > in this listing).
>
> I never questioned the fact that a TeX category would be a good thing, only
> your data is weird. As a sign of conciliation I send you a semi-automated patch:
I've tested it more before I hit the send key in the last mail. It
wasn't meant to be a general way to determine the exact number of ports.
I've just used some commands which work on _my_ system and as I was lazy
I just pasted parts of my shell session.
I don't think we need to discuss this further, the important part
(creating a new major category) is in the hands of kris/portmgr.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
I will be available to get hired in April 2004.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040128142646.1542ee19>