Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:14:20 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> To: Freddie Cash <fcash@sd73.bc.ca> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: rc_subr-1.31 Message-ID: <20050613091420.GD1789@isis.sigpipe.cz> In-Reply-To: <60869.24.71.128.63.1118603612.squirrel@imap.sd73.bc.ca> References: <1118593453.383.15.camel@xris.fu41.vpn> <60869.24.71.128.63.1118603612.squirrel@imap.sd73.bc.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Local package initialization:Starting foo.Starting bar.Starting
> > whatever.
> > I think an output like:
>
> > Local package initialization: foo bar whatever.
>
> > ...without "Starting" for every service looks more professional.
>
> Personally, I prefer the "Starting service X" output better.
> Especially since that is what is shown when you run the RC scripts
> manually. I never liked the "foo" output when you ran the RC scripts
> manually, as it never really told you if the daemon had started,
> stopped, or errored out. Now, with the "Starting foo", "Stopping foo"
> etc, it looks more natural and is easier to understand.
It could perhaps output "Starting foo" if called outside the system
startup, and " foo" otherwise.
--
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050613091420.GD1789>