Re: Package naming conventions (?)

In message <CABObuOpcsG=hgLTTqm-Pw9PMWrS__5uLohY4JWwJvq9O-G1fJA@mail.gmail.com>
"parv/freebsd" <parv.0zero9+freebsd@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I don't know if I should file a bug report on this or not.  Feedback would
>> be appreciated.
>>
>> There is a small problem with what appears to be the "standard" naming
>> convention(s) for package names.
>
>...
>
>You mean a *de facto*, not a written policy, on the '"standard"' convention,
>which is borne out to of package versions just happen to follow a pattern,
>until now.?

Yes.  It is apparently a convention.  Not clearly in any sense a "standard".

>> In general, full package names end with a version number which consists
>> exclusively of digits, periods, commas, and underscores.
>
>Some times there are letters too.

It would appear so, unfortunately.

>> Thus the
>> *generalized* (non-version-specific) package names for all currently
>> installed packages may, generally speaking, be derived thusly:
>>
>>     pkg info | awk '{print $1}' | sed -E 's/-([0-9]|,|_|\.)+$//'
>
>You could combine all the choices in a single character class:
>/-[0-9,_.]+$/.

Yes.  Silly me.  My bad.  I was in a hurry.

>> (I am not aware of any easier way to generate such a list of the base names
>> of all currently installed packages.  If I have just missed how to do that
>> more easily, please let me know.)
>
>
>Check out "raw" output via '--raw' option of pkg-info(8); note the "name"
>field. There may be some incantation for pkg-query(8) to obtain the
>information
>more directly.

Ummm... Invalid option.

# pkg info --raw
Usage: pkg info <pkg-name>
       pkg info -a
       pkg info [-AbBDdefIklOqRrs] [-Cgix] <pkg-name>
       pkg info [-AbBDdfIlqRrs] -F <pkg-file>

For more information see 'pkg help info'.