On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 01:55:07PM +0100, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: > >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'?
Well, it should still go into maintenance if there's not a default config that makes sense, otherwise you'll get that /infuriating/ behaviour where you try to enable something and it immediately disables itself, and svcs -x is silent. (That's also quite annoying in other cases, but presuming an implementation of 'disable' deps, at least svcadm enable -s <service> could print an explanation beyond 'svcadm: Instance <foo> is in maintenance state.') regards john
