Re: pkg_summary to include PKGBASENAME and PKGVERSION?

[matthew sporleder <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:13 AM, iMil <imil%home.imil.net@localhost> wrote:
>
>>> The only justification is to save tool developers from having to
>>> derive it.
>>
>> The overhead is about 5 lines of code in C including error checking.
>
> Please. Have a look at pkg_summary(5) and see, for example, PKGNAME and
> PKGPATH entries for apache and php-mysql :
>
> apache has 3 versions, apache 1.3.x, apache-2.0 and apache-2.2, here an easy
> way of detecting which apache is to be installed is to use its PKGPATH name
> (apache, apache2, apache22). Of course I could ask the user but that would
> compromise an automatic mode.
>
> For php-mysql (4 and 5 being present) and similar packages, it's the
> contrary, their PKGPATH do match, but their PKGNAME are different.
>
> I'm working on those issues right now, and I can assure you this kind of
> package discovery is _not_ a 5 lines of code overhead.
>
> Anyway, I'll have to handle this -and more, have a look at unmatching
> REQUIRES/PROVIDES and RESTRICTED packages not being flagged on
> pkg_summary(5)- so my tools is usable on NetBSD 4+.
>


That's interesting.  There are quite a few packages where the PKGNAME
doesn't relate to the PKGPATH.  The general situation seems to be
similar to apache where the PKGPATH or PKGNAME includes a version and
the other does not.  (1188 of them, by my count; mostly php, perl,
ruby, kde, apache and python pkgs)