Peter Tribble wrote: > On Nov 14, 2007 3:29 PM, Liane Praza <liane.praza at sun.com> wrote: >> Maybe I missed a mail in the middle (apologies if I did), but I'm a bit >> confused by what precisely about Mark's current proposal you think >> doesn't match traditional expectations (i.e. init/rc-based) of start/stop? >> >> The only concrete complaint I've seen about Mark's updated proposal in >> the "doesn't match expectations" vein is from Peter about including >> current -s behaviour. Current enable -s behaviour is in line with how >> init scripts used to behave -- it makes the action synchronous with >> respect to the caller. running "init.d/foo start" was also synchronous >> with respect to the caller. It seems to meet traditional expectations >> closely enough to be useful. > > My comment was simply that the wrappers in /etc/init.d currently run > without the -s. > > Perhaps it's the init wrappers that have it wrong?. I just think that > whether I type "/etc/init.d/nscd start" or "svcadm start nscd" that > the behaviour would be the same
Ah, got it. Sorry I mis-read (or under-read) your mail. It's probably a fair RFE to suggest that the current init wrappers which invoke svcadm should do so with -s. liane
