From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 26 06:35:55 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D6F1065670 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:35:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx23.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36C58FC16 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 32411 invoked by uid 399); 26 Oct 2010 06:35:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.2.9?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 26 Oct 2010 06:35:53 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4CC676C8.8070303@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:35:52 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garrett Cooper References: <4CC5D83E.8030505@delphij.net> <4CC5D9DB.1020409@FreeBSD.org> <4CC5F35A.7090809@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] More meaningful information about ENOEXEC for kldload(8) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:35:55 -0000 On 10/25/2010 5:53 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 10/25/2010 13:33, Ivan Voras wrote: >>> >>> (except if the message is changed to say "please look at the kernel >>> syslog messages to find out the real reason for this failure") >> >> Thinking about Garrett's response as well, this may be the best way to go. > > Well.. I'm not saying the current output is the best, but I just > don't want to dig a deeper hole that will further confuse people, as > some users may get even more confused with additional details. I don't think "You'll find more information in the logs" to be confusing. >> At this point I'm also not concerned about waiting for an ideal solution. >> IMO an incremental change here would be most welcome. > > Wouldn't noting this in the manpage be sufficient? I think _also_ adding it to the man page would be appropriate. IMO this is an area where we have to try and think more like users, and less like developers. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/