[PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC

[Brooks Davis]

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.

-- Brooks

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20060501/d46babfe/attachment.pgp