2008/159 svcs -xq

[Liane Praza]

Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 02:05:26PM -0800, Liane Praza wrote:
>> I'm submitting this case on behalf of Mark Martin.  I've made it
>> an Automatic approval, as it is adding an option to svcs which is
>> already in identical use in another already ARCed command (svcprop).
>>
>> If there are concerns, we'll happily turn this into a fasttrack and
>> let the discussion run its course.
>>
>> liane
> 
>> +     If the optional -q is provided in the fourth form, the command
>> +     produces no human-readable text and simply returns an error
>> +     code indicative of the existence of degraded services.  With
>> +     this flag, an error code of 3 indicates services exist that are in
>> +     a maintenance state whereas an error code of 0 indicates
>> +     no services in the maintenance state.
>>
>>   EXIT STATUS
>> +
>> +     3    Services exist in maintenance state.
> 
> I'd suggest that it's worth adding an exit status for the degraded
> state as well.

Good catch.

Not to put words into Mark's mouth, but... it's a single exit status for 
all problems.  Thus, having a separate status for degraded services 
would mean differentiating again another status for when some where 
degraded and some were in maintenance.  Considering we also indicate 
offline as a 'problem' state, I'd think the best thing would be just to 
rephrase this part of the manpage as "Services exist which are enabled, 
but not running.", rather than referring explicitly to maintenance.

Mark can obviously speak up if he disagrees.

liane