2008/159 svcs -xq

[Mark Martin]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Ceri Davies <ceri at submonkey.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:28:03PM -0500, Mark Martin wrote:
>
> >  EXIT STATUS
> > +
> > +     3    Services exist in problematic state.
> >
> > Ceri, as to your point about (service_degraded == all_is_well), that's
> out
> > of scope for this case.  I'll file a bug for svcs -x showing degraded
> state
> > and we can hash that at a later date.
>
> That suits me OK, although I'm still not really happy with the
> implication, particularly in the EXIT STATUS section above, that
> "problematic" wouldn't include 'degraded'.  What the exit status really
> indicates is that services that should be 'online' are presently either
> in maintenance, waiting for a dependency to come online (?)  or, if
> you're very quick, possibly uninitialised.  I'd prefer that be made
> explicit since I definitely would parse that statement as including
> 'degraded'.
>

  EXIT STATUS
  +
  +     3    Services exist which are in the maintenance state or
  +            are blocking other enabled services

'zat ok?

Mark


> I'd be equally happy for svcs to grow a -X option for including degraded
> services which should be reasonably interface safe, rather than
> extending svcs -x and possibly breaking stuff.
>

Bug submitted.  I'll follow up with a bug id after it makes the rounds to
the outside.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080311/8ac8197a/attachment.html>