Hello Chris, Am Mittwoch, 23. November 2011, 22:09:42 schrieb Chris Mortimer: > Hello Malte, > > Thanks for your reply. All makes sense apart from > > 'The exception being > upgrades to packages scheduled for removal and then maybe (?) upgrades to > their dependencies.' > > sorry, not sure I follow this bit. Do you mean that if a package has been > removed from profiles.xml and that package has also been edited to upgrade > it, the upgrade will happen first, then it will be removed? Exactly. There has been quite some discussion about this feature in the past and it can be disabled with /noUpgradeBeforeRemove. The rationale behind this feature is that this way the admin gets a chance to fix e.g. broken remove commands by bumping the revision which ensures the package is up to date locally before running its remove commands. In fact, to only fix removal, you could publish an upgraded revision with no upgrade commands at all, so the upgrade will merely feed the updated removal instructions into the client's local database. HTH, Malte |