On May 11, 2021, at 02:28, Gerben Wierda wrote:
> On 11 May 2021, at 01:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> The port-reclaim(1) manpage and `port help reclaim` say:
>>
>> "port reclaim will find files that can be removed to reclaim disk space by
>> uninstalling inactive ports on your system as well
On May 12, 2021, at 18:02, raf wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 02:44:38PM -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
>
>> On 2021-05-10 at 12:47:35 UTC-0400 (Mon, 10 May 2021 09:47:35 -0700)
>> Ken Cunningham is rumored to have said:
>>
Isn't that just sudo port setrequested installed
>>>
>>> That’s
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 02:44:38PM -0400, Bill Cole
wrote:
> On 2021-05-10 at 12:47:35 UTC-0400 (Mon, 10 May 2021 09:47:35 -0700)
> Ken Cunningham
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > > Isn't that just sudo port setrequested installed
> >
> > That’s what I’ve always done to avoid this, also
On 2021-05-10 at 12:47:35 UTC-0400 (Mon, 10 May 2021 09:47:35 -0700)
Ken Cunningham
is rumored to have said:
Isn't that just sudo port setrequested installed
That’s what I’ve always done to avoid this, also having been
burned by it once years ago:
sudo port setrequested installed
That
> On 11 May 2021, at 01:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2021, at 17:07, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>
>> I relied on the fact that man page/help of reclaim said it would not remove
>> active installs. So, having read that, I assumed it was unable to damage the
>> running setup and I
On May 9, 2021, at 17:07, Gerben Wierda wrote:
> I relied on the fact that man page/help of reclaim said it would not remove
> active installs. So, having read that, I assumed it was unable to damage the
> running setup and I assumed it would only remove everything inactive, compile
>
> Isn't that just sudo port setrequested installed
That’s what I’ve always done to avoid this, also having been burned by it once
years ago:
sudo port setrequested installed
sudo port -v reclaim
K
On 2021-05-10 at 11:43:56 UTC-0400 (Mon, 10 May 2021 17:43:56 +0200)
Bjarne D Mathiesen
is rumored to have said:
Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On May 9, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Gerben Wierda via macports-users
wrote:
Anyway, the hard lesson was: reclaim is not ’safe’. I thought,
reclaim would only
> "Bjarne" == Bjarne D Mathiesen writes:
Bjarne> port -q installed \
Bjarne> | awk '{print $1}' \
Bjarne> | xargs -n1 port setrequested
Isn't that just
sudo port setrequested installed
Or am I missing something?
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503
Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On May 9, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Gerben Wierda via macports-users
> wrote:
>> Anyway, the hard lesson was: reclaim is not ’safe’. I thought, reclaim
>> would only remove inactive installs, but it removed active ones as well.
>>
>> It is
I agree that the implementation could be better - it doesn't look
super-complicated, perhaps making this less surprising/less destructive would
be a good first project for someone interested in working on macports-base?
> On May 10, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> Too late now,
Too late now, but IMO, if it had been three state (tag absent as well as
unrequested and requested values) from the first introduction of that tag, and
automatic assignment of "unrequested" was conservative enough, then one
wouldn't have to tag everything one wanted to keep as requested. In
> "Gerben" == Gerben Wierda via macports-users
> writes:
Gerben> That was a mistake I now know. Reclaim will remove active unrequested
Gerben> installs. But the help/man does not say so.
Let me just say that as a long-time Macports user, I also got burned
badly by this.
--
Randal L.
active unrequested installs.
But the help/man does not say so.
G
Sent from my iPhone
> On 9 May 2021, at 21:26, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Gerben Wierda via macports-users
> wrote:
>> Anyway, the hard lesson was: reclaim is not ’safe’. I
On May 9, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Gerben Wierda via macports-users
wrote:
> Anyway, the hard lesson was: reclaim is not ’safe’. I thought, reclaim would
> only remove inactive installs, but it removed active ones as well.
>
> It is not possible for me to retrace what went wrong ex
Naively assuming the logic of ‘port reclaim’ would be safe I ran this on my
production installation of nameserver/webserver/mailserver
The result was catastrophic. After removing stuff it told me it needed to
rebuild dovecot and after that most of my setup was gone. rspamd had been
removed
16 matches
Mail list logo