Fedora disimprovements: am I alone?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 00:19 +1030, Tim wrote:
> But much less precise.  It's all very well to say "this," "that," and
> "the other," need to start after "this thing," is easier to set.  But
> if you definitely need "this thing," followed by, "this," followed by
> "that," followed by "the other," in that precise order.  Then the
> numbered scheme does exactly what you want.

Tim, the point of the systemd scheme is that it allows you to specify a
directed graph (actually a directed acyclic graph or DAG) of
dependencies. In terms of expressive power this is a superset of what
you can do with the number scheme. IOW anything you can do with the
number system you can also do with a DAG, but often without
overspecifying the order and hence losing potential parallelism.

I'm saying this from a theoretical standpoint. Whether the potential
parallelism is really exploited and if so whether it has a real effect
is another matter, as is the syntax of the systemd command set.

poc