From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 26 18:52:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAEB16A420 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:52:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com) Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com (out4.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E4B43D70 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:52:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com) Received: from frontend1.internal (mysql-sessions.internal [10.202.2.149]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A762D38A69 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:52:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.151]) by frontend1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:52:32 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: CXFB+XIJ2oZl+stIhPcSIN+QnT3hGImcqn39yVjCbN2z 1140979949 Received: from gumby.localdomain (bb-87-81-140-128.ukonline.co.uk [87.81.140.128]) by frontend2.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A16571506 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:52:29 -0500 (EST) From: RW To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:52:27 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060225022934.87508.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> <43FFC282.5090601@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <43FFC282.5090601@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602261852.29340.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Subject: Re: Remove a Port and All Dependencies X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:52:41 -0000 On Saturday 25 February 2006 02:35, Aaron Dalton wrote: > Peter wrote: > > Wouldn't this remove all ports that depend on the port in question (its > > dependants)? The OP wants to remove all ports that are *required* by the > > port (its dependencies). But furthermore, he wants to remove those that > > AREN'T NEEDED BY ANY OTHER PORTS. > > pkg_deinstall won't remove ports that are required by other ports. > pkg_deinstalling a Perl (p5-) port, for example, won't forcefully > deinstall lang/perl itself (unless you're removing the very last port > that requires lang/perl). You have to be a little careful there. As I understand it that protection relies on a self-consistent package database. You don't notice this if you use portupgrade because it needs the same self consistency to function and massages the dependencies (or refuses to do anything until you fix them manually) Whilst portmanager can leave behind these dependency mismatches (when you don't fully update your ports), it's own leaf-deletion option doesn't seem to be thrown by them.