On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:14:47PM -0700, David Bustos wrote: > Quoth Keith M Wesolowski on Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 01:57:01PM -0700: > > 2.4. svccfg(1M) changes > > > > 2.4.1. export changes, introduction of exportall > > > > 'svccfg export' is modified to export the values of properties in > > SPGs as if they had no values, regardless of whether the user performing > > the operation has the required authorization. This prevents accidental > > exposure of sensitive data in XML documents used for interchange > > purposes. > > > > To provide the ability to export documents containing the values of > > sensitive properties, we introduce 'svccfg exportall'. This command > > behaves identically to 'export', except that the values of properties in > > SPGs are exported if the user has sufficient authorization to read them. > > Otherwise, the command terminates and displays an appropriate error > > message. > > Is there a reason you're introducing a new command rather than a flag to > export, like "svccfg export -a"?
Yes, a misunderstanding. I misread the grammar and was thinking that, because we can't readily support more than one option in arbitrary order with the existing grammar, that we can't support one. The existence of delete -f is sufficient counterexample, and I've already made the change to export -a. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
