Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:32:33 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: cokane@cokane.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6 Message-ID: <44485251.9050303@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <346a80220604202019g3e3aaea5lfe19bcabaaf65c1d@mail.gmail.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> <346a80220604202019g3e3aaea5lfe19bcabaaf65c1d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Coleman Kane wrote: > On 4/20/06, *Eric Anderson* <anderson@centtech.com > <mailto:anderson@centtech.com>> wrote: > > David Barbero wrote: > > > --- snip --- > > 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. > > > > 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 to > have an option to not print these, maybe an rc_fancy_verbose option. Is > this desirable to most? > > > 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 ]. > > > I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give me an 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? > > > > In principle this is what I have seen at first sight on the patch. > > > Thanks for all the feedback and testing! > > > Eric > > > I have modified the patch as follows: > > Made a bunch of the settings tunable by the user (message text and field > widths). > > It is availalbe at http://www.cokane.org/files/rc_fancy-cokane2.patch This looks good. I only wonder about two things now: - Should we also have a line for the actual colors used too? Or is that going too crazy? - Does it meet style(9)? I'm wondering about line lengths now. Other than that, do we have general consensus that these do what they claim? Any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed? 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?44485251.9050303>