Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:15:53 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC Message-ID: <44761079.4080801@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20060525011232.GA14233@ramen.coleyandcheryl> References: <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> <20060501192920.GE4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20060501212801.GA2254@pint.candc.home> <44577B56.70704@centtech.com> <447497F8.10009@centtech.com> <20060525011232.GA14233@ramen.coleyandcheryl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Coleman Kane wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 12:29:28PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote, and it was proclaimed: >> Eric Anderson wrote: >>> Coleman Kane wrote: >>>> On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:29:20PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>> What situations are we determining get flagged as ERROR versus FAILED? >>>> Is FAILED considered to be 'I was able to run the command, but it >>>> returned an error code', versus ERROR being 'I could not even run the >>>> command!' like bad path, file not found, etc... >>>> >>>> This point still kind of confuses me (and needs to be well defined). I >>>> am an advocate of having three distinct messages: OK, SKIPPED, ERROR. >>>> And not even bothering with the different types of ERROR/FAILED other >>>> than having extra reporting output. >>> I'm ok with just OK, SKIPPED, ERROR.. If there's ever a need for more, >>> it's easy to add it. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >> >> Is this still planned to make it into -CURRENT? >> >> Thanks, >> Eric >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology >> Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Yeah, I've been working on it in my spare time. I am investigating some > avenues regarding status reporting from the rc scripts to the console. > Also been slow getting some hardware together to put cokane.org back up > and online. > > Mostly real-life just got in the way of freebsd for a little while. > > -- > coleman kane Ok - just making sure it had not been forgotten. :) Thanks Coleman! 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?44761079.4080801>