> I don't want to encourage an `abuse' of `BEFORE' entries; the `BEFORE'
    > support was primarily added for third party scripts which may be
    > installed into the system where you don't want to have to modify the
    > existing scripts to change the dependency ordering.
   
   While that may be true, it seems like a perfect thing to use for this
   type of situation.  Everything that requires securelevel 0 should run
   "BEFORE securelevel" is changed...


i concur.  i added `BEFORE:' because it was a necessary evil.  i don't
like it's use, but it *is* the most natural way of specifying these
conditions...