Nicolas Williams wrote: >On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:10:26PM -0800, Darren Reed wrote: > > >>To add to Rainer's point, something that I see missing from >>"enable -st" is the ability to start without all of the dependencies >>already being "online". >> >> > >Should "start -r" mean "enable dependencies recursively" or "start >dependencies recursively"? > >
No! Why? Because maybe a service that is listed as a depedency has failed (or cannot start or is in maintenance or whatever) and what the administrator wants to do is start a very specific service for whatever reason. To expand upon my prior email... For example, if nis/client has failed and name-services hasn't been met, then doing "svcadm start inetd" will NOT get me the result I want because the "-r" will likely crumble when it goes back to nis/client. Darren
