On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 03:02:20PM +0000, Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I don't like OPTIONAL-REQUIRE; that's too much of a semantic clash.
> > 
> > How about 
> > 
> > BEFORE-IF-PRESENT:
> > 
> > AFTER-IF-PRESENT:
> > 
> > This avoids using REQUIRE (since these aren't actual requirements,
> > just ordering constraints), and expresses the "if foo is here, this
> > has to go before foo, but if not don't worry" quite naturally (to me
> > anyway).
> 
> Hm, sounds reasonable. How about adding AFTER as alias to REQUIRE then?

AFTER doesn't mean the same thing.  Also, adding aliases will make
the rc.d scripts harder to interpret and to search, and it may break
existing scripts.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung@ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933