Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:16:02 +0200 (CEST) From: "David Barbero" <sico@loquefaltaba.com> To: "Eric Anderson" <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6 Message-ID: <32256.194.179.68.110.1145535362.squirrel@webmail.loquefaltaba.com> In-Reply-To: <44464BBF.5040801@centtech.com> References: <20060419040716.4F26116A45F@hub.freebsd.org> <20060419095207.GC19339@wjv.com> <44462C07.4030903@centtech.com> <444634C1.9080206@centtech.com> <44464BBF.5040801@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric Anderson escribió: > > Thanks to Rick Petty for pointing me in the right direction (man page!), > here's the latest, and I think solid patch (for RELENG-6): > > > http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-6 > > > Eric > Hi all. I have found several anomalies operations in the patch. After to apply the patch, so that it works is necessary to put in rc.conf rc_fancy="YES ", when put this single entry, the system gives errors saying that correctly this entry in rc.conf is not correctly defined, adding single rc_fancy_color="YES" gives the same error. If the two entry meetings are added it don't show the error. I believe that serious advisable that these two entry did not depend the one on the other and worked separately. Another failure with which I have been is that after apply the patch and to take the normal system, without the entry rc_fancy * the system does not show such messages exactly, leave several points between the lines of the services. Ej: starting sendmail . . . starting apache and it would have to see itself of the following way: starting sendmail starting apache Another one of the failures that I have seen is that with this patch they show all the services, they are or not formed to start, I believe that single they would have to appear the services that are formed to start and not all those that can start. In addition the services that are not formed to start appear like [ OK ], in the case of appearing these, I believe that they would have to leave with another denomination that is not [ OK ]. Another failure that I have seen is that when leaving the message syslogd this sample failure, but this service starts without problems, but shows it as if it gave failure... In principle this is what I have seen at first sight on the patch. Regards. -- "Linux is for people who hate Windows, BSD is for people who love UNIX" "Social Engineer -> Because there is no patch for human stupidity"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32256.194.179.68.110.1145535362.squirrel>