On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Ceri Davies <ceri at submonkey.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:28:03PM -0500, Mark Martin wrote: > > > EXIT STATUS > > + > > + 3 Services exist in problematic state. > > > > Ceri, as to your point about (service_degraded == all_is_well), that's > out > > of scope for this case. I'll file a bug for svcs -x showing degraded > state > > and we can hash that at a later date. > > That suits me OK, although I'm still not really happy with the > implication, particularly in the EXIT STATUS section above, that > "problematic" wouldn't include 'degraded'. What the exit status really > indicates is that services that should be 'online' are presently either > in maintenance, waiting for a dependency to come online (?) or, if > you're very quick, possibly uninitialised. I'd prefer that be made > explicit since I definitely would parse that statement as including > 'degraded'. > EXIT STATUS + + 3 Services exist which are in the maintenance state or + are blocking other enabled services 'zat ok? Mark > I'd be equally happy for svcs to grow a -X option for including degraded > services which should be reasonably interface safe, rather than > extending svcs -x and possibly breaking stuff. > Bug submitted. I'll follow up with a bug id after it makes the rounds to the outside. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080311/8ac8197a/attachment.html>
