Reclaim was not 'safe'

[raf]

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 02:44:38PM -0400, Bill Cole <macportsusers-20171215 at billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:

> On 2021-05-10 at 12:47:35 UTC-0400 (Mon, 10 May 2021 09:47:35 -0700)
> Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com>
> is rumored to have said:
> 
> > > Isn't that just sudo port setrequested installed
> > 
> > That’s what I’ve always done to avoid this, also having been burned by
> > it once years ago:
> > 
> > sudo port setrequested installed
> 
> That basically eliminates the first stage of "reclaim" from ever doing
> anything, which may not be a bad idea as it currently stands. Also, it is
> probably better to use 'active' rather than 'installed' as there's no point
> in marking deactivated ports (generally speaking: old versions) as
> requested.
> 
> -- 
> Bill Cole
> bill at scconsult.com or billcole at apache.org
> (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
> Not Currently Available For Hire

It would probably make most sense to only setrequested
those active unrequested ports that you use directly
(i.e. not everything that is depended upon by requested
ports that you use directly).

In other words, if a port was installed as a
prerequisite of a port you want, and then you started
using that prerequisite port independently of the
originally wanted port, then that prerequisite port
should be setrequested. But other prerequisite ports
shouldn't be setrequested.

cheers,
raf