port reclaim exclude build dependencies

[Jonathan Stickel]

On 1/22/19 05:00, macports-users-request at lists.macports.org wrote:
> From: "Bill Cole" <macportsusers-20171215 at billmail.scconsult.com> To: 
> macports-users at lists.macports.org Subject: Re: port reclaim exclude 
> build dependencies Message-ID: 
> <CD4FF54A-43B7-487D-B975-527386F5C6D3 at billmail.scconsult.com> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 21 Jan 2019, at 10:34, 
> Jonathan Stickel wrote:
>> The `reclaim` command of port is a great idea. However, it has a
>> serious limitation, at least for me. When checking for leaves, it does
>> not consider build dependencies, which I like to keep (rather than
>> reinstalling every time they are needed). Therefore I cannot let it
>> uninstall leaves. Fortunately, I can still use port_cutleaves for this
>> purpose, using the `-b` option. As far as I can tell, such an option
>> does not exist for port reclaim. Is there sufficient interest to
>> (re-)open a ticket requesting this feature? I found this one that is
>> basically the same as what I am requesting:
>>
>> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/57180
>>
>> It was closed with `worksforme`, suggesting that the submitter should
>> use `setrequested` for his build dependencies. I would rather not do
>> that because build dependencies can change as ports evolve.
> -1

Really, `-1`? You couldn't just say `0`, you don't care?

> 1. You can just say no. Really. It's easy.

I do. But because reclaim is now the sanctioned tool and does other 
useful things, I thought it reasonable to request a use flag.

> 2. You can exercise judgment in doing a 'port setrequested' for some
> common dependency ports that you know you will always want (e.g.
> autoconf, boost, ncurses, etc.) and avoid having to save no regularly.

This takes work that could be automated. If there isn't interest, OK, 
I'll keep doing what I'm doing.