Christine Tran wrote: > 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. Even though there is something in the SMF FAQ, the reason CR 5100134 was made a showstopper is because it is a call generator.
The print/rfc1179 service really should be disabled in the generic_limited_net profile, and really should be enabled in the generic_open profile. The whole problem stems from the fact that the print/server may or may not be enable, and how to enable the print/rfc1179 when it should be enabled. The print/server can be enabled even when secure-by-default. print/rfc1179 (and print/ipp-listener) should not run when secure-by-default. In order to keep the print/rfc1179 service from getting in the offline state when moving to the generic_open profile, I'm thinking I need to modify the netservices script to simply disable the print/rfc1179 service, if the print/server service is not enabled, immediately after the generic_open is applied. Thank you, Cindy
