On 10/29/07, Casper.Dik at sun.com <Casper.Dik at sun.com> wrote: > > >(I'd like to completely eliminate the possibility of setting the two > >differently, but I suspect that some scenarios require it.) > > It's funny that the one thing I really would like to have: enable at > next boot, is currently not possible and not possible in the proposal > on the table either. Or is that such an unnatural thing to want.
There was a proposal to make an option enable/disable -p (for permanent), which did what you want. (I am not sure the status of the proposal) For me, "-p" is completely unintuitive. I would rather see new verbs that are human decipherable, like bootenable/bootdisable. Ideally it would be enable/disable, as I feel starting and stopping a service should be separate from it's boot time status. I do however see the power of the idea that by combining the two into one command, as the running state will be mirrored by the state after reboot. I'm just not sure I think it reflects typical uses, and in particular unix admins muscle memory. One other note, about what enable means in SMF parlance. If a service is enabled, it is as if it were in inittab. For me such monitoring of services is generally reserved for known fragile processes, and would rather have the average process "die hard" rather than have it quietly and automatically be restarted. > > Casper > _______________________________________________ > sysadmin-discuss mailing list > sysadmin-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sysadmin-discuss > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
