2008/159 svcs -xq

[Liane Praza]

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:06:45PM -0800, Liane Praza wrote:
>> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> I guess we still have time, before degraded is actually implemented, to
>>> resolve the shared configuration issue.  Or you could have another svcs
>>> option to control whether degraded -> error.
>> svcs -x already considers degraded to be a "service that is enabled but 
>> not running".  This case doesn't change that fact.
> 
> Huh?  Since what build?  I don't see that with fairly recent bits
> (degraded shows up as "online").

svc.startd isn't using the degraded state.  This is a bug.  inetd does 
use the degraded state.

But, that's orthogonal to the svcs -x behaviour, which I was wrong about.

"svcs -x <fmri>" does attempt to diagnose why a service is in degraded, 
which I misread last night to say that it will display degraded services 
in its unadorned "svcs -x" invocation.  That's not true.  My apologies.

This means Ceri's request is a new one.  It falls out of the scope of 
the current definition of svcs -x:

                          Without   arguments,   the   -x   option
                          explains the states of services which:

                              o    are enabled, but are  not  run-
                                   ning.

                              o    are preventing another  enabled
                                   service from running.

I'm going to turn this into a fasttrack (expiring on 6 March), to let 
Mark consider whether it's in-scope and appropriate to address this new 
request as part of this case.  (And re-validate any updates with the SMF 
community.)

liane