On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jay Levitt wrote: > > Rainer Müller wrote: > >> This is basically 'port outdated'. What would be the use of this if it > >> is so similar? > > > > I think "port list" could/should be an alias for "port outdated". I'm > not > > usually a fan of synonyms, but "list" is a basic function, provided by > yum, > > gem, and quite probably others. Sure, you can document it in the wiki, > but > > why force users to look something up and type a different command when > you > > already know what they mean? > > > > Is there a use case where someone would be displeased by the output of > "port > > outdated" when they do a "port list", and where they'd be more pleased to > > see "Please see the documentation" or "No such command?" > > `port list installed`,`port list all`, `port list <specific port>`. > > Having commands just because users might try them doesn't seem like a > good policy to me. As for the "we know what they meant" argument, it > would seem that we don't, judging by the differences in what we think > the command should do. > > I'm happy for list to be removed. If it stays, its output needs to be > changed so it's clear what it is showing, and so 'list installed' does > something sensible. One possibility would be to have two labelled > columns, one for the available version and one for the installed > versions of each port. > I'm with Josh here (more or less): It seems like rather than remove port list, just add a couple lines indicating what is going on; maybe column headers and one line saying "Showing all available ports." or "Showing all installed ports." Dump those to stderr so people can still do easy piping and parsing.
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
