On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 08:03:58AM -0700, Liane Praza wrote:
> > Ugh. That's what I'm not at all convinced of. You'd be both changing
> > the default behaviour of svcs -x to print more services (IIRC Nico was
> > opposed to this), and ending up with some kind of weird exit codes.
>
> My objection was, admittedly, weak. IIRC I conceded that when I made
> it.
>
> I think the simplest thing to do would be to have one error code mean
> "one or more services in maintenance state" another to mean "no services
> in maintenance but one or more degraded" and, of course, 0 ("no services
> in maintenance and no services degraded").
>
> Actually, even simpler: tell me to stuff it :) (In which case we'll
> simply up the priority on common config storage for props that the SMB
> server and idmap want to share.)
>
I'd rather keep the simple errorlevel semantic: 0 = svcs -x prints nothing,
3 = svcs -x prints something.
Getting svcs -x to squawk more about degraded services should be another
case.
Besides, I'd rather see the priority on common config storage upgraded
(although I lack the fortitude to tell anyone here to get stuffed).
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080311/ac1a781d/attachment.html>
