On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:16:52PM -0800, Darren Reed wrote: > 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!
That was not a yes/no question! Or did you mean that there should simply not be a -r argument for start? > 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. I'm assuming that start should never clear services that are in maintenance mode, for the reasons stated by Liane. > 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. start -r would not complete, and may have started some services and not others. Perhaps start shouldn't have a -r. But if it did, should it recursively start or enable? How would this be different for enable -r? Nico --
