Resend to correct smf-discuss alias...
Cathleen.
Hi smf-discuss alias,
Renee Danson suggested that I
redirect this question to you.
Stephanie.Brucker at Sun.COM wrote:
> Hi folks -
>
> Can any of you help Cathleen or give a pointer to someone who knows
> about her issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Steff
>
>
> Cathleen Reiher wrote:
> > Hi Steff,
> >
> > When you enable services, such as Solaris CIFS,
> > you get the following informational message:
> >
> > # svcadm enable -r smb/server
> > svcadm: svc:/milestone/network depends on svc:/network/physical,
> which has multiple instances.
> >
> > This seems to be a message you might see if
> > you enable a service that depends on
> > svc:/milestone/network.
Renee said:
Assuming that miletone/network was already online when you issued
that command, it does seem unnecessary, and I would thing could be
a bug. You probably want to check with some smf folks about that.
If milestone/network were not online, and neither of the network/physical
instances were either, it would make more sense. The -r option makes
the enable recursive; in which case you would end up with an ambiguous
request, since there are two different ways to fulfill milestone/network's
dependency on network/physical (enabling network/physical:default OR
enabling network/physical:nwam).
> > It also sounds like you can ignore this message,
> > so I'm wondering why it's issued if there's not
> > a problem.
> >
> > Can you help me understand this issue? Should
> > I file an RFE to discontinue issuing the message
> > or at least clarify the "so what" about it? :-)
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Cathleen.
>
