Order of activation/deactivation pre/post phases

[Arno Hautala]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Artur Szostak <aszostak at partner.eso.org> 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    /-|   arno at alum.wpi.edu

pgp b2c9d448