On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:50:14PM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: > 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?
Ideally, ntpd should require NETWORKING and that should solve all problems. The real problem is that routed is included with DAEMON, not NETWORKING. I think that's the real problem and judging that routed is in /sbin, we could probably move it there without a problem. -gordon
msg48493/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
