Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 12:06:45 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC Message-ID: <20060501190645.GB4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <44557F34.3020906@centtech.com> 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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] 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. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEVlxEXY6L6fI4GtQRAozqAKCcAQyNAKeQqunsFxWlv5vGKealqwCfWHR4 dUdQK1zF3taz6gBZWEfzeac= =D+bn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060501190645.GB4315>