From nobody Fri Dec 31 09:29:04 2021
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
	by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02521935029
	for <freebsd-questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 09:29:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com)
Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4JQKb53VFlz3Gfm
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 09:29:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com)
Received: by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix, from userid 1237)
	id 8E56B4E6C2; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 01:29:04 -0800 (PST)
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Package naming conventions (?)
In-Reply-To: <CABObuOpcsG=hgLTTqm-Pw9PMWrS__5uLohY4JWwJvq9O-G1fJA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions
List-Help: <mailto:questions+help@freebsd.org>
List-Post: <mailto:questions@freebsd.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:questions+subscribe@freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:questions+unsubscribe@freebsd.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <37427.1640942944.1@segfault.tristatelogic.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 01:29:04 -0800
Message-ID: <37428.1640942944@segfault.tristatelogic.com>
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JQKb53VFlz3Gfm
X-Spamd-Bar: ----
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org;
	none
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00];
	 REPLY(-4.00)[]
X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N

In message <CABObuOpcsG=3DhgLTTqm-Pw9PMWrS__5uLohY4JWwJvq9O-G1fJA@mail.gma=
il.com>
"parv/freebsd" <parv.0zero9+freebsd@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I don't know if I should file a bug report on this or not.  Feedback wo=
uld
>> be appreciated.
>>
>> There is a small problem with what appears to be the "standard" naming
>> convention(s) for package names.
>
>...
>
>You mean a *de facto*, not a written policy, on the '"standard"' conventi=
on,
>which is borne out to of package versions just happen to follow a pattern=
,
>until now.?

Yes.  It is apparently a convention.  Not clearly in any sense a "standard=
".

>> In general, full package names end with a version number which consists
>> exclusively of digits, periods, commas, and underscores.
>
>Some times there are letters too.

It would appear so, unfortunately.

>> Thus the
>> *generalized* (non-version-specific) package names for all currently
>> installed packages may, generally speaking, be derived thusly:
>>
>>     pkg info | awk '{print $1}' | sed -E 's/-([0-9]|,|_|\.)+$//'
>
>You could combine all the choices in a single character class:
>/-[0-9,_.]+$/.

Yes.  Silly me.  My bad.  I was in a hurry.

>> (I am not aware of any easier way to generate such a list of the base n=
ames
>> of all currently installed packages.  If I have just missed how to do t=
hat
>> more easily, please let me know.)
>
>
>Check out "raw" output via '--raw' option of pkg-info(8); note the "name"
>field. There may be some incantation for pkg-query(8) to obtain the
>information
>more directly.

Ummm... Invalid option.

# pkg info --raw
Usage: pkg info <pkg-name>
       pkg info -a
       pkg info [-AbBDdefIklOqRrs] [-Cgix] <pkg-name>
       pkg info [-AbBDdfIlqRrs] -F <pkg-file>

For more information see 'pkg help info'.