On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Artur Szostak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why does a pre-activate phase happen before a deactivation phase when > upgrading from an older port revision to a newer one?
My assumption is that deactivating v1 is a requirement (dependency / prerequisite) of activating v2, so it occurs before that step. Your proposed order would make deactivating v1 a prerequisite of the pre-activate phase of v2. This is the sort of thing where I can see arguments for both behaviors, but in the end it's going to be a wash. Is there a specific goal you're trying to achieve that can't be solved by conforming to how things are done now? Can you explicitly call deactivate from pre-activate? -- arno s hautala /-| [email protected] pgp b2c9d448 _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
