On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:01:14PM -0600, Mark Martin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at > sun.com> > wrote: > > My objection was, admittedly, weak. IIRC I conceded that when I made > > it. > > 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).
Better learn quick! :) OK, so, Liane: here's your chance -last chance- to tell me to stuff it :)
