On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:01:24PM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > On another note, I thought the patch a bit excessive. Here, I just added > BEFORE: ntpd to routed. OTOH, it seems that patch did a bit more.
It's not excessive. It's the correct solution. Your solution solves your specific problem but it's not the right way to go about solving the problem. It's kind of hard to explain, you have to work with it for a while to get the hang of it. For some things it might be easier _and_ right to say this must come before that. In this case; however, ntpd requires that routing be available as a prerequisite, but there's no real relationship that exists between the two that necessitates routed having to know about ntpd. If we were to follow your example to its logical conclusion the BEFORE line for the routing daemons would have to include _every_ daemon that requires network availability. I think in this case it would be more correct to have the network daemons REQUIRE the routing daemons. Does that make sense? Cheers. -- Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fingerprint: D228 1A6F C64E 120A A1C9 A3AA DAE1 E2AF DBCC 68B9
msg48487/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
