port list confusion

[Craig Treleaven]

At 11:35 AM -0400 6/20/13, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Craig Treleaven <ctreleaven at cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>>  I'll throw in a couple of cents worth in (even 
>>though we've abolished the penny here in 
>>Canada!)
>
>We're still stuck with ours :(
>
>>  The -v option in 'port -v installed' adds:
>>  "(active)" in the obvious cases
>>  "platform=___" -- I don't see the value in this?
>>  "archs=___" which is again useful info.
>
>The "platform" field is somewhat useful for 
>debugging migration-related issues.
>
>>  Would it make sense to implement 'port list', 
>>'port echo', 'port outdated' and 'port 
>>installed' as wrappers to 'port info'?
>
>I'm not sure how this makes sense. The "port 
>info" subcommand is intended to produce as much 
>useful information as is reasonable, not lists 
>of ports. If "port installed" produced the 
>output of "port info" for every port I had 
>installed, I'd shoot myself in the face.

Try 'port info --fullname --category --line 
installed';  see 'port help info' for all the 
options.

>And "port echo" is kind of its own thing. It's 
>intended for checking what pseudoports and 
>complex port specifications (using logical 
>operators and such) evaluate to, which is why it 
>only prints port names.

'port list requested' is awfully darn similar to 'port echo requested'.

>  > * There seems to be a bug with 'port -q list 
>installed' as it lists ALL ports--not just those 
>installed!
>
>What version of base are you running? On latest 
>trunk, that command works fine.

My mistake, it is so slow (and it repeats the 
same line for each time a version of the port was 
installed) so I thought it was going through 
every port.

Perhaps a flag could de-dupe the list of ports 
that the pseudo expands to?  Such as when 
attempting to get a list of ports in order to 
migrate to a new OS version.

Craig