`port -n upgrade --force foo` should deactivate after creating the new archive

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

I think this has only been touched up on the ML:

Currently, reinstalling a port with port -n upgrade --force foo will

u0) do an archivefetch or verify if the port destroot phase has been terminated u1) deactivate the currently active version of foo u2) create the archive in ${prefix}/var/macports/software/foo u3) activate that archive (unpack it, move files into place)

Installing a new version of the same port has the following operation sequence: i0) do an archivefetch or verify if the port destroot phase has been terminated i1) create the archive in ${prefix}/var/macports/software/foo i2) deactivate the currently active version of foo i3) activate that archive (unpack it, move files into place)

The sequence i1,i2 is appropriate, the sequence u1,u2 much less. The difference becomes noticeable when foo is a large port like Qt: the lapse of time that no version is active is significantly longer than required and desirable. Indeed, running dependents can run into issues; this is clearly then case with KDE PIM applications like kmail (and its myriad of helper agents) which tend to abort or crash when Qt disappears for long enough.

NB: doing port upgrade foo of a port that has a new version pending has the same sequence order, i1,i2!

I have had a look at macports::_upgrade but that procedure is too complex to assess easily whether the u1 and u2 can be interchanged in the upgrade sequence. However, I don't see the difference between reinstalling the same version of a port (via upgrade --force) or upgrading to a new version, so I assume that that same order of operations can be followed during a reinstall. Hence filing a defect ticket instead of an enhancement request.

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

PS:

Curiously, the order becomes as expected/suggested when doing port -nd upgrade --force foo ...

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

Add somehow I managed to create 2 tickets; this one can be removed.