Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-12 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-12 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-12 Thread raf
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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-12 Thread Bill Cole
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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-11 Thread Gerben Wierda via macports-users
> 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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-10 Thread Ryan Schmidt
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 >

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-10 Thread Ken Cunningham
> 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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-10 Thread Bill Cole
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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-10 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
> "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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-10 Thread Bjarne D Mathiesen
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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-10 Thread Daniel J. Luke
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,

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-10 Thread Richard L. Hamilton
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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-09 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
> "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.

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-09 Thread Gerben Wierda via macports-users
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

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-09 Thread Daniel J. Luke
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

Reclaim was not 'safe'

2021-05-09 Thread Gerben Wierda via macports-users
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