Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 14:13:22 -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: <44565DD2.1020604@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20060501190645.GB4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20060420035530.F1A5A16A4E0@hub.freebsd.org> <20060420132543.GB37150@wjv.com> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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?44565DD2.1020604>