On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 07:59:50AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Ceri Davies writes:
> > I've been bitten this morning by bug 6296119 "lsvcrun doesn't seem to
> > honor #! interpreter specifications" which was closed as "Not a Defect"
> > some time ago. I'm about to beg to differ, although obviously I haven't
> > seen why that was considered "not a defect".
>
> It's "not a defect" because a reference to the S9 implementation of
> /sbin/rc2 showed that it did this:
>
> 76 for f in /etc/rc2.d/S*; do
> 77 if [ -s $f ]; then
> 78 case $f in
> 79 *.sh) . $f ;;
> 80 *) /sbin/sh $f start ;;
> 81 esac
> 82 fi
> 83 done
>
> In other words, it simply has _never_ done what the user thought it
> would do.
Ah, OK. "Not a defect" is woolly then; all the explanation I needed.
> > I'd like to see bug 6296119 reopened, or an explanation of why the above
> > isn't considered a defect, and then I'd like to request that someone
> > sponsor me via the request-sponsor program to fix it.
>
> Perhaps it could reasonably be considered an RFE, as long as the
> person working on it realizes that such a fix will have some fairly
> annoying portability issues. In particular, any software designed to
> take advantage of it won't work right on older versions of Solaris
> and, after all, isn't that the _ONLY_ valid reason to be delivering an
> rc script rather than an SMF service?
>
> (I wouldn't bother with an enhancement like this, precisely because
> it's just a compatibility feature, and because nothing new should have
> these scripts.)
I'm not in agreement that rc is dead (practicality denies the truth of
that, I'm afraid), but I'm happy with the status quo. Thanks for
clarifying.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/attachments/20080616/995c446a/attachment.bin>
