Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 14:16:04 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC Message-ID: <44565E74.3060801@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20060501191447.GD4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <4447D2F7.1070408@centtech.com> <346a80220604232037mb6f98a0x5fab21622de5ce3c@mail.gmail.com> <444C51BA.3020905@centtech.com> <20060424131508.GB23163@pint.candc.home> <444CD48A.4060501@centtech.com> <444CE475.30104@centtech.com> <20060430231621.GA551@pint.candc.home> <44557F34.3020906@centtech.com> <20060501190645.GB4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <44565DD2.1020604@centtech.com> <20060501191447.GD4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brooks Davis wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:13:22PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: >> Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:23:32PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: >>>> Coleman Kane wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: >>>>>> Eric Anderson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, some other things got changed somewhere in the history, that >>>>>> broke some things and assumptions I was making. This patch has them >>>>>> fixed, and I've tested it with all the different options: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-9 >>>>>> >>>>>> It's missing the defaults/rc.conf diffs, but you should already know >>>>>> those. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>> I have a new patch (to 7-CURRENT) of the "fancy_rc" updates. >>>>> >>>>> This allows the use of: >>>>> rc_fancy="YES" ---> Turns on fancy reporting (w/o color) >>>>> rc_fancy_color="YES" ---> Turns on fancy reporting (w/ color), needs >>>>> rc_fancy="YES" >>>>> rc_fancy_colour="YES" ---> Same as above for you on the other side of >>>>> the pond. >>>>> rc_fancy_verbose="YES" --> Turn on more verbose activity messages. >>>>> This will cause what appear to be "false >>>>> positives", where an unused service is >>>>> "OK" instead of "SKIP". >>>>> >>>>> You can also customize the colors, the widths of the message >>>>> brackets (e.g. [ OK ] vs. [ OK ]), the screen width, and >>>>> the contents of the message (OK versus GOOD versus BUENO). >>>>> >>>>> Also, we have the following message combinations: >>>>> OK ---> Universal good message >>>>> SKIP,SKIPPED ---> Two methods for conveying the same idea? >>>>> ERROR,FAILED ---> Ditto above, for failure cases >>>>> >>>>> Should we just have 3 different messages, rather than 5 messages >>>>> in 3 categories? >>>> Yes, that's something that started with my first patch, and never got >>>> ironed out. I think it should be: >>>> OK >>>> SKIPPED >>>> FAILED >>>> and possibly also: >>>> ERROR >>>> >>>> The difference between FAILED and ERROR would be that FAILED means the >>>> service did not start at all, and ERROR means it started but had some >>>> kind of error response. >>> FAILED vs ERROR seems confusing. I'd be inclined toward WARNING vs >>> FAILED or ERROR. >> True, however I still see a difference between FAILED and WARNING. For >> instance, as an example: a FAILED RAID is different than a RAID with a >> WARNING. > > For that level of detail, the ability to provide additional output seems > like the appropriate solution. Yes, true, but you'd still want to show something (I would think) in the [ ]'s to keep it consistent. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44565E74.3060801>