Davin McCall

Ok, yeah I understand the issue. I'll think on this a little.

@mobin-2008 I don't understand your example (and I'm not sure you understand the discussion). Your suggested example change for `anbox-container-manager ` actually removes dependencies. I suspect you're using "after" when...

Let me lay out the problem as I understand it myself: - dinit dependencies always carry an implicit "after" relationship as part of the dependency (there is no "before" relationship...

> is implementing before really that much of an effort? it should be mostly just looking up the named service's node and internally adding a "dependency" link, i.e. identically to...

> can't one load/parse the whole dependency graph before actually starting anything? The difficulty is that a service named in a `before =` might not exist in the whole graph....

> when you say "to be loaded" i assume parsed and added into the system, but not activated, right? Yep, exactly

I hope to be able to do something about this soon. I have a few other issues (that I've been putting off) that I'm also working on.

I have begun working on this (currently on the `development` branch). I'm aiming for `before` support only at this stage (`after` is theoretically easier, but `before` should be more useful,...

> wouldn't one get after pretty much for free once before is implemented without introducing much complexity? Well, if the named service does exist, an "after" is equivalent to "waits-for",...

> If the named service does exist, after is not equivalent to waits-for, as waits-for will result in the named service being activated. Hmm, right. Ok, I may have been...