On question with -r. Does it "start" or "enable" the dependencies?
On Nov 8, 2007 12:23 PM, Mark Martin <storycrafter at gmail.com> wrote: > Gang, > > > I believe there's minimal consensus that start/stop as an alias for enable > -t does have some value, if only for historical connotations. After > re-reading the discussions here many times, I believe here's how I'd like to > proceed. I'm going to assume that this is the correct approach unless > someone tells me I will get veto'ed at RTI time. > > (continuing the list thinking meme) > I will create a new svcadm start command which will an alias for enable -st > I will create a new svcadm stop command which will be an alias for disable > -st > start -r will be available, but not the default > start will report non-started (or enabled) dependent services that prevent > it from continuing (unless the -r option is specified). > > I will update the man pages similarly to my initial proposal with the > inclusion of more wording regarding the "-r" flag and behavior of reporting > on blocking service enablement > > I will query bugster and log the following RFE's if they are not already > logged. > A delayed enablement should be possible (enable after reboot) > User defined SMF snapshots should be possible > > My thinking is that they should be hashed on their own merits. I at least > want to capture some of the ideas presented here. > > Thanks, > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > smf-discuss mailing list > smf-discuss at opensolaris.org > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
