"Peter Tribble" writes:
> On 9/16/07, Stephen Hahn <sch at sun.com> 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.
> > > ...
> > >
[...]
> > > 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?
>
> Do you want me to actually file this as an RFE, or is there anything that
> covers it already?
6198442 encompasses most of it. I'll add the info from this thread
to that bug today.
liane
