On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 08:09:00AM -0800, Liane Praza wrote: > (Seems like we're in agreement, though, so I won't belabour the point > further.)
We are. > > > > In any case, IMO, svcadm start/stop should be: a) non-persistent > > That's in Mark's proposal. Ah. I thought I'd seen some controversy on this point. I was stating my opinion and being too lazy to review the proposal on the table. I shall now go back to lurking :) > (This assertion will probably cause some heated discussion. But, > warning messages appearing during as-designed behaviour which happen > *every invocation* would be a departure from current design patterns. OK, sold :) > > And, also IMO, enable/disable need to have a flag to affect only the > > state on next boot. > > That's a separate RFE, but is already filed. I concur, but don't think > it's fair to tell Mark he has to fix them at the same time -- they're > separable, and Mark can fix what he wants. Of course.
