Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 10:46:22PM -0700, Rainer Heilke wrote: >>> 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. >> Yes, but there are other aspects to the start option proposed than just >> the enabled/disable at next boot. One was the question of whether or not >> we should have to run a clear or stop before another start. This makes >> it difficult to tie it to the enable option (unless we change the basic >> operation of enable). > > No, I think *nothing* should do a clear operation other than clear > itself. The consensus on this, ISTM, is strong.
In which case, as I've said, I don't see the point of having "start" at all (it's just an alias to "enable -some switches"). It buys us nothing. > -t goes back to S10FCS and earlier. Yes, when it comes to questions of > SMF history we definitely need to hear from Stephen, Liane or the Davids :) OK, I did not remember correctly. And yes, let's hear from the source(s). :-) Rainer -- Mind the gap.
