Jason R Thorpe writes:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 05:03:49PM +1100, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> 
>  > 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 feel that this may end up in with far more complex dependancy rules;
there was some stuff using BEFORE when the target should have REQUIREd
it instead. It was starting to get messy, and IIRC, there was the
potential for making things more difficult to insert the
afore-mentioned third party scripts (although I can't currently recall
the scenario I ran into then).

Whilst BEFORE may stylistically make more sense here, I don't want to
set the precedent where people will abuse the BEFORE stuff
unnecessarily, which may then result in the aforementioned difficulty
for end-users to insert their own scripts into the dependancy tree...

Flippant comment: it was also easier to modify one script rather than
hacking all of the scripts that wanted to run before it... :)