On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 19:57, Rainer Müller wrote: > On 27.01.19 19:42, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > 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? > > I have not checked in detail, but I think port_cutleaves gets everything > from the ports tree. > > > 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 Who cares if an outdated 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. > > Mixing the information from the registry with the information from the > ports tree seems like a bad idea. Once you start with that, it just gets > more and more complicated.
Should we file a ticket for the base to (a) store that information and (b) consider it in reclaim? Mojca
