Reclaim was not 'safe'

[Ryan Schmidt]

On May 12, 2021, at 18:02, raf wrote:

> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 02:44:38PM -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> 
>> On 2021-05-10 at 12:47:35 UTC-0400 (Mon, 10 May 2021 09:47:35 -0700)
>> Ken Cunningham 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.

Requested status applies to port names only and is independent of the version, variants, or other attributes of the port.


> 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.

Correct.