Cynthia Eastham wrote: >> What's functionally wrong with this method? offline is functionally >> the same as disabled, OK except for the annoying message when you do >> svcs -x. When serviceA is restarted, its offlined dependents restart. > > Unfortunately, that's exactly why CR 5100134 was created, and is a > showstopper. Users are alarmed when they see that the service is in an > offline state because it has a dependency on a service which by default > is disabled.
Is it not possible to disable print/rfc1179 right off the bat? I think Tony also suggested this. There's a section in the SMF FAQ that answers this, users need not be alarmed if they understand this situation. CT
