Subject: Re: [patch] Non strict dependency in rcorder
To: None <>
From: Mike M. Volokhov <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 08/16/2006 10:21:33
Martin Husemann <> wrote:
> 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)?

To be sure that nothing goes wrong :-)

An rcorder will set non-zero status and prints a warning message
in those cases.  So you should ran 'rcorder -d' after any changes
in your rcd script set, which is not too convenient. Please also
note, that rcorder funcionality is not limited to rcd scripts, and
if you have dynamic comopound of rc scripts you should always ran
rcorder with -d or close eyes on possible incosistencies.


P.S. But to be honest, your idea allows to solve the original problem
on the whole 100%. Thanks.