On 2017-11-6 12:45 , Rainer Müller wrote: > On 11/05/2017 07:36 AM, Joshua Root wrote: >> On 2017-11-5 16:47 , Eitan Adler wrote: >>> On 1 March 2017 at 03:34, Rainer Müller <rai...@macports.org> wrote: >>>> Sorry, I missed this earlier in the pull request [1], but I would be fine >>>> with just changing the definition of leaves. The new 'rleaves' makes more >>>> sense to me. Is there actually a use case for the old 'leaves', where this >>>> pseudo-port cannot be replaced with 'rleaves'? >>> >>> I sometimes abused the old leaves as a debugging tool when I needed to >>> clear away some development ports, but not everything. That said, in >>> almost every other use case I wanted the rleaves behavior. > >> It's a longer list to go through if you're checking for ports you >> actually want to mark as requested. Also the name "leaves" doesn't >> really make sense with the new behaviour since it can list a lot of >> ports that are not leaf nodes on the dependency graph. > > When would you go through the old "leaves" to mark them as requested? If the > next step was to remove unrequested ports, you could even have missed some > ports > you wanted to keep, but they would then be uninstalled because did not want to > keep another dependent. > > I agree that 'leaves' does not really fit any more now that the behavior is > always recursive. However, I do not have anything better to propose. > Maybe "removable", "unneeded", ...? > > Are there other package managers with a similar feature? I only know of apt > which has the 'apt-get autoremove' command, which removed packages that were > "automatically installed and are no longer required". But it does not seem to > use a short form to describe this set either.
After some more time with this change I found another reason to dislike it. Since 'leaves' now contains a mix of ports with dependents and without, you can't always just uninstall a single port from the list. I understand this new "all the stuff that can be removed" set is useful, but I want my leaves back. - Josh