Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:16:38 -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: <44C651F6.90504@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <44761079.4080801@centtech.com> 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> <44761079.4080801@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/25/06 15:15, Eric Anderson wrote: > 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 > > Any progress on this? Maybe another committer could take a look at it if you are too busy? 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?44C651F6.90504>