Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 12:29:20 -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: <20060501192920.GE4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <44565E74.3060801@centtech.com> References: <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> <44565DD2.1020604@centtech.com> <20060501191447.GD4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <44565E74.3060801@centtech.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:16:04PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > >On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:13:22PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: > >>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. > > > >For that level of detail, the ability to provide additional output seems > >like the appropriate solution. > > Yes, true, but you'd still want to show something (I would think) in the > [ ]'s to keep it consistent. My feeling is that anything short of complete success should report WARNING and a message unless it actually totally failed in which case FAILED or ERROR (I slightly perfer ERROR) should be used. -- 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) iD8DBQFEVmGPXY6L6fI4GtQRAoRRAKDe3Jz202bcirmwS8CRRBAVyDavggCcDzrx IivIEKdZACW9zfQ+BvVUjbU= =wT+/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060501192920.GE4315>