Reclaim was not 'safe'

[Daniel J. Luke]

I agree that the implementation could be better - it doesn't look super-complicated, perhaps making this less surprising/less destructive would be a good first project for someone interested in working on macports-base?

> On May 10, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Richard L. Hamilton <rlhamil at smart.net> wrote:
> Too late now, but IMO, if it had been three state (tag absent as well as unrequested and requested values) from the first introduction of that tag, and automatic assignment of "unrequested" was conservative enough, then one wouldn't have to tag everything one wanted to keep as requested. In other words, ports already installed at the time of the introduction of the tag could have been handled differently from those installed later. Also, some ports that seem just meta-ports to install a bunch of others (like kdegames4) should IMO, if explicitly installed, tag all the ports they install that are not just build-time dependencies as requested (if they don't already - I don't know when the tag was added, nor when I installed kdegames4).
> 
>> On May 10, 2021, at 01:13, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn at stonehenge.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>> "Gerben" == Gerben Wierda via macports-users <macports-users at lists.macports.org> writes:
>> 
>> Gerben> That was a mistake I now know. Reclaim will remove active unrequested
>> Gerben> installs. But the help/man does not say so.
>> 
>> Let me just say that as a long-time Macports user, I also got burned
>> badly by this.

-- 
Daniel J. Luke