Re: [macports-base] 02/03: Add 'rleaves' alias

[Rainer Müller]

On 2017-12-15 13:12, Joshua Root wrote:
> 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.

Okay. So let's keep both 'leaves' and 'rleaves'. That also solves the
naming problem, I guess.

I am going to revert my changes and restore what Dan had submitted in
the pull request.

Rainer

Re: [macports-base] 02/03: Add 'rleaves' alias

[Joshua Root]

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  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

Re: [macports-base] 02/03: Add 'rleaves' alias

[Rainer Müller]

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  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.

Rainer

Re: [macports-base] 02/03: Add 'rleaves' alias

[Eitan Adler]

On 1 March 2017 at 03:34, Rainer Müller  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.

-- 
Eitan Adler

Re: [macports-base] 02/03: Add 'rleaves' alias

[Rainer Müller]

On 2017-03-01 12:34, Rainer Müller wrote:
> On 2017-02-17 22:42, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
>> Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (danchr) pushed a commit to branch master
>> in repository macports-base.
>>
>> https://github.com/macports/macports-base/commit/b042c0e754098d7e7d6630e37f9db7ef9657a379
>>
>> commit b042c0e754098d7e7d6630e37f9db7ef9657a379 Author: Dan Villiom Podlaski 
>> Christiansen 
>> AuthorDate: Fri Feb 17 22:26:48 2017 +0100
>>
>> Add 'rleaves' alias ---
>>  doc/port.1| 11 +++
>>  doc/port.1.txt|  2 ++
>>  src/port/port.tcl | 21 +
>>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/doc/port.1.txt b/doc/port.1.txt index 5d2be2a..db56670
>> 100644 --- a/doc/port.1.txt +++ b/doc/port.1.txt @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@
>> available port tree(s). These may be used in the same way as a
>> 'portname'.  - 'unrequested': installed ports that were installed only 
>> to satisfy
>>dependencies
>>  - 'leaves': installed ports that are unrequested and have no dependents
>> + - 'rleaves': installed ports that are unrequested and that no +
>> requested ports depend on
> 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'?
Replaced 'leaves' with the semantics of 'rleaves' now:

https://github.com/macports/macports-base/commit/14a5154087f8883f07041586ad83df26097950a6

Rainer

Re: [macports-base] 02/03: Add 'rleaves' alias

[Rainer Müller]

On 2017-02-17 22:42, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
> Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (danchr) pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository macports-base.
>
> https://github.com/macports/macports-base/commit/b042c0e754098d7e7d6630e37f9db7ef9657a379
>
> commit b042c0e754098d7e7d6630e37f9db7ef9657a379 Author: Dan Villiom Podlaski 
> Christiansen 
> AuthorDate: Fri Feb 17 22:26:48 2017 +0100
>
> Add 'rleaves' alias ---
>  doc/port.1| 11 +++
>  doc/port.1.txt|  2 ++
>  src/port/port.tcl | 21 +
>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/doc/port.1.txt b/doc/port.1.txt index 5d2be2a..db56670
> 100644 --- a/doc/port.1.txt +++ b/doc/port.1.txt @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@
> available port tree(s). These may be used in the same way as a
> 'portname'.  - 'unrequested': installed ports that were installed only to 
> satisfy
>dependencies
>  - 'leaves': installed ports that are unrequested and have no dependents
> + - 'rleaves': installed ports that are unrequested and that no +
> requested ports depend on
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'?

Rainer

[1] https://github.com/macports/macports-base/pull/20