On 2019-01-02, at 10:00 AM, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
> Hi Ken. > > Ken Cunningham wrote: >> It can be risky to use port reclaim for systems that can't use the buildbots >> as backup, or don't have a buildbot like 10.5 Intel or 10.4 PPC. >> >> You must be quite careful, or you'll be doing a lot of needless rebuilding. >> >> For each port or ports that you know you want, do this: > > > sorry for asking more details.. but why should it be risky on 10.4 or 10.5? I think what happens is that port reclaim doesn't maintain the build dependencies, only the runtime ones (which is what most people need). So on a system without a buildbot, some things are called in for the build, like clang-5.0 or cmake or gcc7, and they can take a long time to build, esp on 10.5 - 10.6. And you probably want them to stay around. But if you install something that needs one of these to build, spend a day building the compiler, then install the software that needs it, and then run port reclaim, the compiler gets flushed. Next update, you're starting over building clang-5.0, cmake, and whatever else again (because you have no buildbot to save you). So you have to specifically set these things as "requested" to prevent them being purged with port reclaim. > > First, I'd expect reclaim to remove: > - installed stuff that is older than the latest installed release (inactive) > - active stuff, but which was pulled in by otehr packages now removed > > of course without buildbot it is more inconvenient to reinstall something, > but why should it happen? > I everything stays to current, removing something old shouldn't even require > arebuild! > > I had a blink light when I saw it wanted to remove soemthing I specifically > installed was up to latest version! > > > Riccardo > > PS: in case, can I reclaim manually certain inactive ports? I often do that -- run port -v installed gcc6 and then uninstall all the versions you don't want any more. Ken
