Defining the workgroup objectives

[Mike Bell]

On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 08:27:05PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > I can see how the idea of having some programmatic view of dependencies
> > is appealing, but the problem is that you can't just say "X depends on Y
> > being up" and be done with it, because how do you define "up" for Y?
> > There isn't really a good way except for testing with a daemon-specific
> > bit of shell scripting, which is one of Gerrit's main points.
> 
> There is one big difference: instead of postfix checking port 60000
> for postgrey, let it ask postgrey whether it's "up". postgrey knows
> best what it means for it to be up, so it should be consulted. Now,
> if the port changes, the postfix init scripts will just continue to
> work.

Do you mean in the manner I described immediately below what you quoted,
or do you have something else in mind?