port upgrade outdated order

[Bradley Giesbrecht]

On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:46 AM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Also, you'd have to make sure that foo-B builds correctly or, if
>> it fails, activate foo-A again after it failed. I don't know whether
>> MacPorts base can do this. I doubt it does.
> 
> No, I think it can't. However, if a conflict is not a build conflict the deactivation could be done very late, even after foo-B's archive has been unpacked in the temp. directory in ${prefix}/var/macports/software/foo-B . At that point you can be pretty sure that everything will be fine.
> 
> BTW, I've already raised a suggestion recently that the same thing could be done while doing an upgrade (or reinstall through `port -n upgrade --force foo`), to reduce the time that the system spends without any active version. 

Reducing the "no active version time" would be a welcome improvement.


Regards,
Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20150304/c21d82b8/attachment.sig>