Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:37:37 -0400 From: "Coleman Kane" <zombyfork@gmail.com> To: "David Barbero" <sico@loquefaltaba.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6 Message-ID: <346a80220604211337v2e8480e8na794d21e923b836b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <26839.194.179.68.110.1145606534.squirrel@webmail.loquefaltaba.com> References: <20060419040716.4F26116A45F@hub.freebsd.org> <20060419095207.GC19339@wjv.com> <44462C07.4030903@centtech.com> <444634C1.9080206@centtech.com> <44464BBF.5040801@centtech.com> <32256.194.179.68.110.1145535362.squirrel@webmail.loquefaltaba.com> <4447B876.4010606@centtech.com> <26839.194.179.68.110.1145606534.squirrel@webmail.loquefaltaba.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/21/06, David Barbero <sico@loquefaltaba.com> wrote: > > > Eric Anderson escribi=F3: > >> After to apply the patch, so that it works is necessary to put in > >> rc.conf > >> rc_fancy=3D"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=3D"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. > > > > Well, obviously the _color option depends on the rc_fancy option being > > enabled, otherwise it doesn't make sense, however you can of course hav= e > > rc_fancy enabled with rc_fancy_color disabled. > > yes, this is obvious, but i say rc_fancy depends on the rc_fancy_color, > disabled or no, in rc.conf, if you don't put a entry for rc_fancy_color i= n > rc.conf, the boot menssage show error. > > > Yep, that's a bug. I think it's fixed in v7, available here: > > > > http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-7 > > > > along with a few other suggestions from others. > > Ok, i will probe this patch in a few days and tell you for this. Probably > Sunday can say something, right now I am of business trip and I do not > have my PC of tests here... > > >> 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. > > > > If the service is run on bootup, it shows it. It was still being run > > before, there was just no output previously. It would be pretty easy t= o > > have an option to not print these, maybe an rc_fancy_verbose option. I= s > > this desirable to most? > > I think a _verbose option don't for now, but can will be interesting. > > In any case I talked about that if you don't start a service (Ex: > geli_enable=3D"NO" in rc.conf) at boot time, in your patch this service i= t's > show, and IMHO, if the service don't start at bootup, then don't show > startup. > > >> In addition the services that are not formed to start appear like [ O= K > >> ], > >> in the case of appearing these, I believe that they would have to leav= e > >> with another denomination that is not [ OK ]. > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give me an example? > > Sorry for my English :) > > Yes, of course. > > in rc.conf: > geli_enable=3D"NO" > inetd_enable=3D"NO" > > And when yo reboot, the bootup menssage show: > > geli service [OK] > inetd service [OK] > > And I believe that this menssage don't show on startup, or in the case of > show the messange, this don't show the [OK], in that case, show [SKIP], > for example. > > >> 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... > > > > My syslogd looks clean, and doesn't give a false failure. I'm not sure > > how to look into this - can you confirm that it truly is passing, but > > giving the wrong message, or is it that the rc subsystem thinks it's > > failing but appears to work ok? > > My syslogd work properly whitout any error, but give a false positive, I > will be probe the last patch and I will try to see if I locate the > failure, but will have Sunday... > > I see other fail in show the fancy_* when I have activated vidcontrol to > 1024x764, but this is but so that it is pretty that an operation failure, > IMHO is not important... > > > Thanks for all the feedback and testing! > > :) > > > Eric > > Regards There was a small defect in the recent version of this script that caused the line width to be too big on the syscons console. I modified it and posted it at: http://www.cokane.org/files/rc_fancy-cokane3.patch --coleman kane
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?346a80220604211337v2e8480e8na794d21e923b836b>