Liane Praza writes: > [1] I have a concern about a 'run-last' mechanism, given that there were > two posited consumers for it within 24 hours of it being proposed, which > is the same thing that happens every time such a mechanism is proposed.
Really? I saw exactly one consumer -- the UPS shutdown case. I must have missed the other. > The specific request in this thread may or may not have been sound, > but the time-to-second-consumer is standard, which means that I worry > that there will never really be a single run-last service on any system, > and that those run-last services will prove to be buggy in the face of > their expectation being violated. The semantics I was expecting was that all of the services with this flag would go into maintenance (and wouldn't work at all) if there were more than one installed on the system. It would intentionally work with at most one such service. Alternatively, I suppose a special guaranteed-to-be-last FMRI could be reserved ... and then only one user could possibly install that way. In any event, I don't think the :true thing would work. That just means it has no dependencies. It doesn't necessarily guarantee that the service goes last on shutdown. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
