pseudoport search against the obfuscated email address maintainer field does not work

[scott@…]

After a discussion on the mailing list, and a search in trac, I am reporting the following:

Deobfuscation of email addresses does not happen, so the more obvious "maintainer:user@example.com" does not work

Works

$port livecheck maintainer:example.com:user

Fails

$port livecheck maintainer:user:example.com

[jmr@…]

Do we really want to slow down mportsearch even more by making it run the deobfuscation on every maintainer field? Besides, it's arguably working correctly in that it matches against what's actually in the index. You're not matching the address exactly in any case, it's a regex.

[scott@…]

I am not sure, I was only doing as was suggested, and will leave the rest up to you guys :)

​http://old.nabble.com/port-livecheck-ts26618013.html#a26618013

The pseudoport matching all your ports is "maintainer:hostwizard.com:scott". (For some reason, the deobfuscation of email addresses does not happen here, so the more obvious "maintainer:scott@..." does not work; you must use the maintainer exactly as it appears in the portfile. A bug should probably be filed for that if we don't already have one.)

[ryandesign@…]

Replying to jmr@…:

Do we really want to slow down mportsearch even more by making it run the deobfuscation on every maintainer field? Besides, it's arguably working correctly in that it matches against what's actually in the index.

I found it nonintuitive that the "maintainer:foo" pseudoport syntax would require the user to use the exact wording in the portfile. What if a user has multiple ports, some of which use the "user@domain" syntax, and others which use the "domain:user" syntax?

You're not matching the address exactly in any case, it's a regex.

True... so the user can use 'maintainer:(user@domain|domain:user)' (with the quotes). It still feels like a workaround for a missing behavior.