On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:10:15PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 04:00:54PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 04:45:30PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > > Nicolas Williams writes: > > > > > > > > I think there's a reasonable RFE here for lsvcrun to support scripts > > > > that aren't /bin/sh scripts. It should help you (and others, not least > > > > the third parties providing these scripts) in porting these startup > > > > scripts. > > > > > > I agree with having some mechanism to make it easier to import these > > > things directly into SMF. I see no point whatsoever in making it > > > "easy" to use them with /etc/rc*.d/ -- which is a legacy interface. > > > > Oh, I agree -- I wouldn't sign up for such an RFE, and probably noone > > else at Sun should either. > > OK, I'm confused. How does that statement match up with "I think > there's a reasonable RFE here for lsvcrun to support scripts > that aren't /bin/sh scripts" ? > > I honestly can't reconcile both of your statements above. Statement #1 > seems to read "getting rid of lsvcrun -s is ok since it does nothing > apart from break non-/bin/sh scripts" (and the "fix" is as simple as > that, I think), while statement #2 says something different which I > don't follow.
It'd be reasonable for someone in the community who really wants it to implement it. But for a Sun engineer it seems like a waste of time.
