From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 24 03:21:18 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663B5106566C; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:21:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0978A8FC16; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:21:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id m6O3LGFV013628; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:21:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:21:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Zaphod Beeblebrox In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40807231949i2b2514bbw78dd36cf418cf573@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <200807231846.33728.jhb@freebsd.org> <5f67a8c40807231949i2b2514bbw78dd36cf418cf573@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I like my rc.d boot messages :( X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:21:18 -0000 On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Daniel Eischen > wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, John Baldwin wrote: >> >> than 'start'. Am I the only one who finds it useful to know which daemon >>> is >>> making my startup hang for an extra second? >>> >> >> No, you are not. I too would like that. >> > > I'd go further: it was nice when startup scripts printed their name (no > newline) and then '.\n' when they were finished. It then becomes > unambiguous who is at fault. It's hard to tell with the current non-system > which of the 2 scrpts (the one that has printed it's name, or the one that > next prints it's name) is at fault. Worse.. it could be the quiet script in > between. Agreed, but you could delineate it with something other than '\n" too. Like '[amd] [smtp] [dhcpd] ...', with the ']' meaning the script is done and has moved on to the next service. -- DE