David Bustos wrote: >Quoth Darren.Reed at sun.com on Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:25:26PM -0700: > > >>With PSARC/2005/334, we made the pfil SMF service redundant, >>and therefore took to removing the manifest file from Solaris. >>This kind of works....except where it causes problems... >> >>The two problems we're trying to resolve are 6543556 and 6543558. >> >>What danger is there in leaving the manifest file present and just >>doing an disable and delete - will anything add it back in later on? >> >> > >It shouldn't if the manifest doesn't change. I think the bigger danger >is the inconsistency between the filesystem and the repository. We want >them to stay synchronized, module the user's customizations. And you >deleting the service doesn't count as a user customization. > > > >>Or is there something else obvious that we should do that we're not? >> >> > >Is the problem that the patch install script deletes the service, and >then the backout restores the manifest, but it doesn't get imported? If >so, then the patch install script probably also needs to delete the >manifest's hash. > >If your problem is that the service won't be imported until >manifest-import runs, and that's too late, then we'll have to resort to >dirty tricks. > >
Is there a bug already opened that captures the problems associated with removing an SMF service via a patch or upgrade? Or an bug/RFE to use a mechanism other than the file /var/svc/upgrade/profile? I hope to have some time to review the Enhanced SMF Profiles design soon to see how this situation will improve. Darren
