>On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 09:58:56AM +0100, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: > >> So you'd want a new mechanism for this? (I'd suggest we do something >> similar for configuration file dependencies). > >Config file deps is a completely different case. The service is misconfigured >and should show up.
I'm not sure I agree from a Solaris development perspective, though our defaults are now not to run services, in some cases it is nice to define a service as magically depending on a configuration file. >> Does SMF actually poll for missing files? > >No, which is the main reason why file dependencies are not supposed to be used. > >(I don't know if there's any recommendations on what services /should/ do >instead, though.) Apparently, this is then 'disable'? Casper
