On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:33:09PM -0600, John Nielsen wrote: > On Aug 30, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:19:59PM -0600, John Nielsen wrote: > >> I today noticed the "pkg autoremove" command for the first time, which > >> does much the same thing as pkg_cutleaves but relies on the "automatic" > >> flag in the pkgng database rather than user input to determine which > >> "leaf" ports can be removed. Unfortunately, the pkg2ng utility has no way > >> of knowing which old-style packages it converts were installed > >> automatically as dependencies, so they are all marked as non-automatic > >> (i.e. user-requested). In my case, this was not true for the majority of > >> installed ports. Since I really like this functionality, I decided to > >> update my local package database to match my preferences. > >> > >> Having succeeded, I decided a tool to make doing so easy could well > >> benefit others (as well as my future self). (Plus I wanted an excuse to > >> play with dialog(1) and "pkg query" a bit.) So here's the result. I'm not > >> too attached to the name. It shouldn't eat your package database or steal > >> your lunch money, but I'm not responsible if it does. Other than that, > >> feedback is welcome. > > > > Would you mind adding create a patch against the git tree of pkgng so that > > we > > can include your script into the scripts subdirectory, so that we provide > > your > > script along with the next pkg 1.0.1 as a contributed script? > > No problem. Attached is the output of "git diff origin" after dropping my > script in to my local tree. Let me know if you need something else. > > Changes between this and the version I originally posted: > Added 2-clause license and disclaimer > Replaced SQL with 'pkg set' commands. Since I didn't come up with a > fast way to list the packages not in the 'automatic' list, I first set all > packages to 0 (not automatic), then set the ones in the list to 1. This is > likely slower than the SQL variant was, but it's not bad and not something > likely to be run frequently. > > JN
Thanks you should be enough, can you provide a git format-patch patch so that you get your name in the logs :D regards, Bapt
pgpLl4Jx83qfv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
