Subject: Re: [patch] Non strict dependency in rcorder
To: Mike M. Volokhov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Martin Husemann <email@example.com>
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)?