Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 12:14:47 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC Message-ID: <20060501191447.GD4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <44565DD2.1020604@centtech.com> References: <4447D2F7.1070408@centtech.com> <346a80220604232037mb6f98a0x5fab21622de5ce3c@mail.gmail.com> <444C51BA.3020905@centtech.com> <20060424131508.GB23163@pint.candc.home> <444CD48A.4060501@centtech.com> <444CE475.30104@centtech.com> <20060430231621.GA551@pint.candc.home> <44557F34.3020906@centtech.com> <20060501190645.GB4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <44565DD2.1020604@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--PHCdUe6m4AxPMzOu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:13:22PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > >On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:23:32PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: > >>Coleman Kane wrote: > >>>On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: > >>>>Eric Anderson wrote: > >>>> > >>>>Actually, some other things got changed somewhere in the history, tha= t=20 > >>>>broke some things and assumptions I was making. This patch has them= =20 > >>>>fixed, and I've tested it with all the different options: > >>>> > >>>>http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-9 > >>>> > >>>>It's missing the defaults/rc.conf diffs, but you should already know= =20 > >>>>those. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Eric > >>>> > >>>I have a new patch (to 7-CURRENT) of the "fancy_rc" updates. > >>> > >>>This allows the use of: > >>>rc_fancy=3D"YES" ---> Turns on fancy reporting (w/o color) > >>>rc_fancy_color=3D"YES" ---> Turns on fancy reporting (w/ color), nee= ds > >>> rc_fancy=3D"YES" > >>>rc_fancy_colour=3D"YES" ---> Same as above for you on the other side = of > >>> the pond. > >>>rc_fancy_verbose=3D"YES" --> Turn on more verbose activity messages. > >>> This will cause what appear to be "false > >>> positives", where an unused service is > >>> "OK" instead of "SKIP". > >>> > >>>You can also customize the colors, the widths of the message > >>>brackets (e.g. [ OK ] vs. [ OK ]), the screen width, and > >>>the contents of the message (OK versus GOOD versus BUENO). > >>> > >>>Also, we have the following message combinations: > >>>OK ---> Universal good message > >>>SKIP,SKIPPED ---> Two methods for conveying the same idea? > >>>ERROR,FAILED ---> Ditto above, for failure cases > >>> > >>>Should we just have 3 different messages, rather than 5 messages > >>>in 3 categories? > >>Yes, that's something that started with my first patch, and never got= =20 > >>ironed out. I think it should be: > >>OK > >>SKIPPED > >>FAILED > >>and possibly also: > >>ERROR > >> > >>The difference between FAILED and ERROR would be that FAILED means the= =20 > >>service did not start at all, and ERROR means it started but had some= =20 > >>kind of error response. > > > >FAILED vs ERROR seems confusing. I'd be inclined toward WARNING vs > >FAILED or ERROR. >=20 > True, however I still see a difference between FAILED and WARNING. For=20 > instance, as an example: a FAILED RAID is different than a RAID with a=20 > WARNING. For that level of detail, the ability to provide additional output seems like the appropriate solution. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --PHCdUe6m4AxPMzOu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEVl4mXY6L6fI4GtQRArPTAJ9zYMeha+AkrxP0hFn0saBGpdeGhQCfUv/s ioEBgEL8dpIT0JnnLwWh4wo= =GXqc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PHCdUe6m4AxPMzOu--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060501191447.GD4315>