On Jan 27, 2019, at 12:26, Rainer Müller wrote:
> The main problem here would be that information about build dependencies
> is not stored in the registry. Only if we this information was kept on
> installation as a first step, we could then respect it during reclaim.
Hmm, why is that a prerequisite? "port_cutleaves" manages to implement
approximately this feature without that information in the registry. I assume
it's getting the build dependencies from the current portfile. Can't "port
reclaim" do the same? And isn't that actually what we want? Who cares if an
outdated installed port had a particular build dependency. What we care about
is whether the current version has that build dependency. The goal is to
prevent the uninstallation of build dependencies that are likely to be needed
in the future; we don't care about build dependencies that were once required
in the past.
