On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:22 PM, David Bustos <David.Bustos at sun.com> wrote: > >> or will blindly do the delete anyways, as Peter suggests. > > Actually I believe Peter suggested that an unsophisiticated user would > "blindly disable" the service. And if someone is willing to blindly > disable a service, then there's no hope.
There's no hope :-( (And not only will they blindly do it, they'll gripe and moan and tell their friends how Solaris packaging isn't capable of obeying the simplest and most obvious of instructions.) > But if someone isn't familiar > with SMF, then that is his opportunity to say, "Hmm, I didn't know that > this package delivered service X. And there's the problem. Why is the user removing this package? To get rid of it and the functionality that it offers - including associated services. (Indeed, one might suspect that users might be trying to remove the package specifically to remove the service.) So either the service is explicitly and obviously associated with the package (the foobar service and the foobar daemon), in which case the user ought to be expecting - indeed wanting - the service to get zapped with the files, or a package delivers a critical but not obviously related service. I regard the latter as badly built packages. (Any examples of obscure relationships?) > Hmm, is it ok to disable service > X now? No, wait, I should tell users to log off first." Again, why are they removing the software, if not to stop it being used? -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
