[147562] branches/portgroups-selector/base/src/port/port.tcl

[Mojca Miklavec]

On 8 April 2016 at 13:00, Rainer Müller wrote:
> ===================================================================
>> --- branches/portgroups-selector/base/src/port/port.tcl       2016-04-08 00:01:31 UTC (rev 147561)
>> +++ branches/portgroups-selector/base/src/port/port.tcl       2016-04-08 00:06:46 UTC (rev 147562)
>
>> @@ -1322,6 +1327,10 @@
>>          ^(revision):(.*)         -
>>          ^(subport):(.*)          -
>>          ^(subports):(.*)         -
>> +        ^(group):(.*)            -
>> +        ^(groups):(.*)           -
>> +        ^(portgroup):(.*)        -
>> +        ^(portgroups):(.*)       -
>>          ^(license):(.*)          { # Handle special port selectors
>>              advance
>
> Here I added support for all of these forms:
>   group:foo
>   groups:foo
>   portgroup:foo
>   portgroups:foo
> It feels kind of excessive to have four keywords for the same thing...
>
> We usually refer to them as "port groups" (which is also the internal
> name), but the shorter "groups" seems clear enough. The "port*" prefix
> seems a bit redundant.
>
> Any opinions?

I would also say that "port" is a tiny bit redundant (but wouldn't
mind any of the two – either group or portgroup). But my preference
would be to keep just one if possible, otherwise it might lead to more
confusion than actual benefits. (Do you plan to introduce "groups" for
something else in the future? :)

Would this be used as
    port echo group:github
or also as
    port echo group[s]:github,cmake
(the second one would probably be a logical expression composed of
"group:github and group:cmake")

Unless it's the second case, I would keep the word in singular. My
intuitive interpretation would be that "groups" would be used as
    port echo groups:gnuplot
to list the portgroups being used by a port.

On the ticket you in fact mentioned
    port info --groups <name-of-port>

For that use plural form makes more sense.

Mojca