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

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

> 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 is correct.  It means that there is nothing you can do, anyway.

> 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.)

Yes; you have to have that anyway.  However, sometimes that isn't
enough, and you want to be able to specify the additional constraints.

In short: I agree with you, we should standardize, but I think we
*also* should be able to specify additional constraints.

I suggest we write up a standard, and then let the LSB people "bless"
it.

	-hpa