What have I forgotten about specifying which Perl should be /opt/local/bin/perl?

[Richard L. Hamilton]

I have no idea of the difficulty of such a change, but it would be interesting if Portfiles contained a release date, and the database of installed ports had both a copy of that for any given installed version, and perhaps the date of installation.

> On Jan 22, 2022, at 10:22, Gabriel Rosenkoetter <gr at eclipsed.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2022-01-22 09:14 EST, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2022, at 01:15, Gabriel Rosenkoetter wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-22 01:28 EST, Kastus Shchuka wrote:
>>>> $ port echo installed and perl5
>>>> perl5                          @5.26.1_0+perl5_28
>>>> perl5                          @5.28.3_0+perl5_28
>>>> perl5                          @5.28.3_0+perl5_30
>>> You see how this is at best confusing and at worst user-antagonistic, right?
>> I'm sorry you feel antagonized; I'm sure that was nobody's intention.
> 
> Wait, wait, I take the antagonistic part of that back, in light of your other response:
> 
> On 2022-01-22 09:11 EST, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > You can use any action you want; it doesn't have to be echo. For example, typically you might want "port installed active".
> 
> This is the output I was looking for:
> 
> [15] (gr at wedge:~)% port installed active and perl5
> The following ports are currently installed:
>  perl5 @5.28.3_0+perl5_34 (active)
> [16] (gr at wedge:~)%
> 
> That is, it shows the perl5 port version as well as the "what Perl will I get if I run `perl`" version.
> 
> After this discussion, I understand clearly which version means what in there, and I see how the query language has been designed to be at least a little friendly to the non-programmer.
> 
> (I think this is probably still a pretty steep learning curve for a new user, but I don't have any better suggestions.)
> 
>> This is one of the aforementioned challenges/complexities with providing multiple versions of a port.
> 
> Heard.
> 
>> If we stick with multiple perl versions, and the perl5 port to create the symlinks, then maybe it would indeed help reduce some confusion to change the perl5 port's version to 1.0, or a YYYYMMDD date, or anything else that is not the version of one of the perl ports.
> 
> I realize that I just sent an email stating the opposite, and I maintain that "1.0" is a bad idea (because it'll eventually climb to being confusingly similar with actual Perl version numbers), but using a POSIX date sounds very promising to me, and would avoid showing, as above, both "5.28.3" and (something that expands to:) "5.34.0" applied to the same port at the same time.
> 
> -- 
> Gabriel Rosenkoetter (he/him)
> gr at eclipsed.net

-- 
eMail:				mailto:rlhamil at smart.net




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20220122/723a2fcb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2814 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20220122/723a2fcb/attachment.bin>