Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:59:29 -0600 (MDT) From: allen campbell <allenc@verinet.com> To: config@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Config Databases Message-ID: <199804260259.UAA23369@const.> In-Reply-To: <17661.893493931@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As to the other files you might screw up the formatting of, I would > propose that rather than leave these nasty little .err files around > (one is reminded of core dumps come back to haunt in another even more > horrible incarnation :-) you simply log the messages to syslog. Then > I can use syslog.conf to more flexibly route those messages to another > host or have them chatter on people's consoles or _whatever_ it is > I want to do with them. This sounds right. Good feedback, regardless of the mechanism, is what matters. > But this conversation has veered off at an undesirable tangent - we > didn't start out to discuss what kinds of comments might be left in a > file or how one might log failures, that's really a gravy decision > anyway, what we started off discussing was what *errors would be > returned* by open/close/read/write on failures that were really > "misconfiguration errors." That's when I started arguing for simply > returning a normal status and leave the errno setting to truly > obvious/fatal I/O errors, not trying to hand back to vi a confusing > errno just because a field was mis-entered. That's the can of worms > we've already discussed. Extending errno became a part of this as an example of a wrong way to handle configfs 'misconfiguration errors.' I would never advocate doing this. My goal has been to find the right way. Leave to errno what is errno's :) Use syslog for configfs gripes. I'm happy with that. Allen Campbell allenc@verinet.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-config" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804260259.UAA23369>