On 10/29/07, Christine Tran <Christine.Tran at sun.com> wrote: > Mike Shapiro wrote: > > > - keep svcadm enable as is for compatibility > > - make svcadm start the same as enable -r -s > > - make svcadm start -t mean svcadm enable -r -s -t, > > i.e. force the user to express the less-common case of temporary enable > > - make svcadm stop the same as disable -s (not recursive, not temporary) > > I'm for using enable/disable to mean setting permanent state, and > start/stop as in "do it now, just for now". There's no point in making > start/stop alias for something else readily available with a switch. I > just read this CR for the first time, and while start/stop is nice and > conforms to *nix standard use, I think enable/disable -t is enough if > the concept has been explained in the right context. I don't think I've > ever had this question raised in any one of SMF sessions I've given.
On thing I noticed is a trend towards overloading enable/disable with flags. (As witness the current implementation of -t for start/stop, and the -p proposal for bootenable/bootdisable.) Intuitively I would like to be able to read the command line so that deciphering the "verbs" doesn't required a trip to the man page. -Brian > CT > _______________________________________________ > smf-discuss mailing list > smf-discuss at opensolaris.org > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
