Stephen Hahn wrote:
>* Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> [2007-09-15 15:31]:
>
>
>>On 9/13/07, Liane Praza <lianep at eng.sun.com> wrote:
>>...
>>
>>
>>>>What I need is the ability to install a service so that it starts out
>>>>permanently enabled but currently disabled. Without doing
>>>>an enable followed by a disable -t.
>>>>
>>>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>Thus: would a single command to explicitly leave the service
>>>in a temporarily disabled/permanently enabled mode solve your
>>>operational request, or is there more you think needs to be explored?
>>>
>>>
>>I think that's basically it. However, another way of putting it is like this:
>>
>>At present, svcadm enable/disable changes both the current and permanent
>>state of a service.
>>
>>We can change the current state of a service, leaving the permanent state
>>unchanged with the -t option.
>>
>>What we need is the counterpart that changes the permanent state of the
>>service without affecting the current state. Maybe enable/disable -p?
>>
>>My expectation is that this would require the same level of permission
>>as a regular enable/disable.
>>
>>
>
> That sounds pretty reasonable as an RFE to me. The various
> smf_{disable,enable}_instance(3SCF) interfaces currently take
> SMF_TEMPORARY, with persistent being the default. Movement into
> maintenance has the addition of SMF_IMMEDIATE. SMF_POSTPONED or
> SMF_DEFERRED, maybe?
>
>
What would the interaction be between the new flag and
"svcadm refresh"?
And more to the point, Peter, what is the desired interaction?
Darren
