Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deriving base port/package names In-Reply-To: <5707CCEE.6040301@FreeBSD.org> References: <51300.1460083670@server1.tristatelogic.com> <5707b24b.9143620a.1a679.ffffbb00SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20160408144957.26ad363f@gumby.homeunix.com> <5707CCEE.6040301@FreeBSD.org>
| previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Put another way, if you're working with full pkgnames '%n-%v' it's always
> the last '-' character that separates the name from the version.
> $ pkgname='postgresql92-client-9.2.16'
> $ echo ${pkgname%-*}
> postgresql92-client
> $ echo ${pkgname##*-}
> 9.2.16
Those of us who prefer to avoid shell perlisms/bashisms (blessed by
POSIX' IBM/RH/Oracle-dominated board or not) appreciate your inclusion
of the equivalent sed regex.
> $ echo $pkgname | sed -e 's,-[^-]*$,,'
> postgresql92-client
> $ echo $pkgname | sed -e 's,^.*-,,'
> 9.2.16
> I think a proposal to rename large chunks of the ports tree to eliminate
> hyphens and digits would certainly not receive a warm welcome.
`pkg rquery -a %n | grep -- '-[0-9]' | wc -l` shows only 40 ports (of
25096). Doesn't seem like a whole lot or a difficult refactor but
perhaps we're missing the use case of this particular group. Anyone
know why these 40 ports are so named?
Roger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?>