From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 24 19:36:18 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97C9106567D for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:36:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outY.internet-mail-service.net (outy.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.248]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8ACF8FC0A for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:36:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from idiom.com (mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out.internet-mail-service.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DD923F9; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD012D6061; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4888D995.5000908@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:35:49 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> References: <200807231846.33728.jhb@freebsd.org> <200807240833.51750.fjwcash@gmail.com> <200807241448.30627.joao@matik.com.br> <4888D859.3090809@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <4888D859.3090809@quip.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, JoaoBR Subject: Re: I like my rc.d boot messages :( X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:36:18 -0000 Miroslav Lachman wrote: > JoaoBR wrote: > > [...] > >>>>> I'd go further: it was nice when startup scripts printed their name >>>>> (no newline) and then '.\n' when they were finished. It then becomes >>>>> unambiguous who is at fault. It's hard to tell with the current >>>>> non-system which of the 2 scrpts (the one that has printed it's name, >>>>> or the one that next prints it's name) is at fault. Worse.. it could >>>>> be the quiet script in between. >>>> >>>> Agreed, but you could delineate it with something other than '\n" too. >>>> Like '[amd] [smtp] [dhcpd] ...', with the ']' meaning the script is >>>> done and has moved on to the next service. >>> >>> I like that. [ means processing has started, name is the service/script >>> runnging, ] means processing of that script has completed. All the info >>> you need for multiple services, all on one line. >> >> >> simply another wiered outcome - not understandable btw same as this >> mystical dot thing >> something more obvious would be: >> >> starting $service_name ... up >> starting $service_name ... up >> ... >> >> that would be something clear, specially for whom did not invented it > > It seems too verbose. (does anybody expect "stoping" service on system > boot?) And each service on separate line seems to me like vaste of space. > Line like "[ssh] [smtp] [dhcpd] [mysql]" is enough for me. > It is easy to document it in handbook and man pages. if we start doing things in parallel then you need to know who has started running and you need to knwo when they finished. otherwise you don't know who it is that has hung and is stopping your boot. [amd starting]...[amd successful] [smtpd starting]... [smptd succcessful] or maybe: [amd starting]...[smtpd starting]...[smptd succcessful]...[amd successful] etc.. > > Just my 0.02 > > Miroslav Lachman > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"