Re: Anyone working on the rc.d installer problem?

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

> I think we need to standardize things, or at least use abstract enough
> start and stop points so that this isn't an issue.
> 
> The basic idea here is that if you need something which requires
> networking and not much else, then you might put in "start = after network"
> If it requires that the remote filesystems be mounted, you should be
> able to say "start = after remotefs", and so on.
> 
> What we *don't* want to force the ISV to do is to research the boot
> script order for every single Linux distribution, and configure a
> separate boot script start line for each different Linux distribution.
> This way lies madness....

I agree, but I *STILL* thinks we want to be able to say:

start = after remotefs, after nfsd, before autofs
stop  = after autofs, before remotefs, before nfsd

... or something to the same effect.  Come to thing about it, a better
way is probably:

start_after  = remotefs nfsd
start_before = autofs
stop_after   = autofs
stop_before  = remotefs nfsd

If all bootup scripts have these declarations, the installer can do a
topological sort on the installed scripts, rather than relying on the
(IMNSHO) very unreliable numbers.

	-hpa