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

["Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>]

   From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>
   Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:01:24 -0800 (PST)

   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.

It's clear we don't want to use numbers.  We need to use abstract
names.  The problem with something like this:

   start = after foo, after bar, before quux

Is that it may be impossible to define these constraints on a system
which does "quux" before "foo" or "bar'.  The constraints on the scripts
may result in no legal place to put the file.

That's why I'd much rather define an archtypal high-level ordering, and
use that instead.  Any attempt to fix this means that you need to have
an ordered list of abstract boot events, and then you're back to what I
suggested.  (i.e., boot, kerneld, network. remotefs, sysdaemons, etc.)

						- Ted