Quoth Nicolas Williams on Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:16:19PM -0500: > Can SMF represent dependencies where the dependee's failure to start > does not stop the dependent from starting -- i.e., where the dependent > waits for the other to start or go into maintenance before starting?
I believe optional_all type dependencies are what you want. > Yes, I think splitting the ntp service may be good. At boot time one > should want ntpdate to quickly step the clock (see its -b option). > Subsequently, if ntpd dies one should not want ntpdate to be used at > all in restarting ntpd. This argues for a transient service for ntpdate > separate from ntpd, with the latter having an optional dependency on the > former. Indeed, particularly since we don't need ntpdate to run each time we restart ntpd. David
