Subject: Re: [patch] Non strict dependency in rcorder
To: Mike M. Volokhov <>
From: Martin Husemann <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 08/16/2006 11:56:20
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:50:36AM +0000, Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> Okay, I'll use the following scheme then:
>   BEFORE and AFTER - order with possible absent providers
>   UPHOLD and REQUIRE(S) - currently used way (with BEFORE replaced by UPHOLD)

I don't understand.

Why not simply make BEFORE and REQUIRE be silent if the requested dependency
is not found unless rcorder is invoked with -d or -v (or whatever you like)?