Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:19:50 -0400 From: "Coleman Kane" <zombyfork@gmail.com> To: "Eric Anderson" <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, David Barbero <sico@loquefaltaba.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6 Message-ID: <346a80220604202019g3e3aaea5lfe19bcabaaf65c1d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4447B876.4010606@centtech.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/20/06, Eric Anderson <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 show= s > > 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 -- Coleman Kane
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?346a80220604202019g3e3aaea5lfe19bcabaaf65c1d>