On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Rainer Heilke wrote: > So, we are debating two or three issues, and they are still getting > tangled up:
The bare minimum we need is a way to set the enabled/disabled-at-next- boot state of a service. Given this I think we can all live with or without a start/stop top-level sub-command. > Should we have a "start" option that has specific implications of > transience, and risk the dangers that presents? (This seems to run > counter to the original development concepts behind SMF, as discussed here.) I don't agree -- we already have the -t option. Providing an alias with an evocative name should not be a problem, but if there are disagreements about what start/stop would mean to someone who's not read the manpage, then we can forget that.
