Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 10:31:34 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC Message-ID: <44577B56.70704@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20060501212801.GA2254@pint.candc.home> References: <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> <20060501191447.GD4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <44565E74.3060801@centtech.com> <20060501192920.GE4315@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20060501212801.GA2254@pint.candc.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Coleman Kane wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:29:20PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: >> On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:16:04PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: >>> Brooks Davis wrote: >>>> 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, >>>>>>>>> that broke some things and assumptions I was making. This patch has >>>>>>>>> them 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 >>>>>>>>> those. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eric >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a new patch (to 7-CURRENT) of the "fancy_rc" updates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This allows the use of: >>>>>>>> rc_fancy="YES" ---> Turns on fancy reporting (w/o color) >>>>>>>> rc_fancy_color="YES" ---> Turns on fancy reporting (w/ color), needs >>>>>>>> rc_fancy="YES" >>>>>>>> rc_fancy_colour="YES" ---> Same as above for you on the other side of >>>>>>>> the pond. >>>>>>>> rc_fancy_verbose="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 >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> service did not start at all, and ERROR means it started but had some >>>>>>> kind of error response. >>>>>> FAILED vs ERROR seems confusing. I'd be inclined toward WARNING vs >>>>>> FAILED or ERROR. >>>>> True, however I still see a difference between FAILED and WARNING. For >>>>> instance, as an example: a FAILED RAID is different than a RAID with a >>>>> WARNING. >>>> For that level of detail, the ability to provide additional output seems >>>> like the appropriate solution. >>> Yes, true, but you'd still want to show something (I would think) in the >>> [ ]'s to keep it consistent. >> My feeling is that anything short of complete success should report >> WARNING and a message unless it actually totally failed in which case >> FAILED or ERROR (I slightly perfer ERROR) should be used. >> >> -- Brooks > > What situations are we determining get flagged as ERROR versus FAILED? > Is FAILED considered to be 'I was able to run the command, but it > returned an error code', versus ERROR being 'I could not even run the > command!' like bad path, file not found, etc... > > This point still kind of confuses me (and needs to be well defined). I > am an advocate of having three distinct messages: OK, SKIPPED, ERROR. > And not even bothering with the different types of ERROR/FAILED other > than having extra reporting output. I'm ok with just OK, SKIPPED, ERROR.. If there's ever a need for more, it's easy to add it. 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?44577B56.70704>