I updated svccfg(1M) to reflect svccfg apply -n <profile> option. I am assuming the behavior described is acceptable. Please let me know if you think otherwise.
Antonello Antonello Cruz wrote: > Ethan, > > That was not planned but I wonder if a 'svccfg apply -n <profile>' that > don't apply the profile, but returns a non-zero value in case of syntax > error would suffice? > > Thanks, > > Antonello > > Ethan Quach wrote: >> >> >> Liane Praza wrote: >>> Ethan Quach wrote: >>>> Antonello, >>>> >>>> Is there a plan to provide a subcommand to validate an >>>> SMF profile like is done with a manifest? >>> >>> Just to confirm, you're not talking about full template validation, >>> just the "svccfg validate" that was available in S10 to ensure the >>> syntax is correct. Right? >> >> Yes, I'm just asking about syntactical validation. >> >> >> -ethan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> smf-discuss mailing list >> smf-discuss at opensolaris.org > > _______________________________________________ > smf-discuss mailing list > smf-discuss at opensolaris.org -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: prop_mod_profiles_arc.txt URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/attachments/20090625/5022fd4d/attachment.txt>
