I am saying that it was my google search that took me to darwinports is how I discovered why I couldn't get the icmptraceroute package. That is how I learned that the package true name was traceroute and not icmptraceroute. There was no way to tell in the "info" or "search". Thank you for making the correction. I am certain an update will reflect your changes for me. Thank you for everything Ryan. -Altoine Ryan Schmidt wrote:

On Nov 18, 2007, at 14:14, Altoine Barker wrote:

...

I have seen this problem before but didn't find anyone complaining about it after doing a little googling. I looked at the port from the darwinports website and discovered that the port is actually named traceroute and not icmptraceroute.

If you're talking about darwinports.com, please know that they're not affiliated with the MacPorts (formerly DarwinPorts) project in any way, and I recommend you do not use that web site as a source for any information. Use the official MacPorts web site, which is www.macports.org.

...

If you do a search for icmptraceroute, you will not find it. If you check it for info using a terminal port commmand (port info icmptraceroute), it still can not be found. Searching for "traceroute" will not produce "traceroute".

Anyone understand a reason for this confusion?

"port search traceroute" does find it:

$ port search traceroute traceroute net/icmptraceroute 1.4a12 a traceroute implementation using ICMP packets tcptraceroute net/tcptraceroute 1.5beta7 a traceroute implementation using TCP packets $

I note that the traceroute port is in a directory called icmptraceroute. I have fixed it in r31247 so it's in a directory called traceroute to match the port name declared in the portfile. This doesn't really have any bearing on anything, just makes things more orderly.

I don't know why the port isn't called "icmptraceroute" if that's the software's proper name. You could ask the maintainer of the traceroute port.