[PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6

[Eric Anderson]

David Barbero wrote:
> Eric Anderson escribió:
>> Thanks to Rick Petty for pointing me in the right direction (man page!),
>> here's the latest, and I think solid patch (for RELENG-6):
>>
>>
>> http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-6
>>
>>
>> Eric
>>
> 
> Hi all.
> 
> I have found several anomalies operations in the patch.
> 
> After to apply the patch, so that it works is necessary to put in rc.conf
> rc_fancy="YES ", when put this single entry, the system gives errors
> saying that correctly this entry in rc.conf is not correctly defined,
> adding single rc_fancy_color="YES" gives the same error.
> If the two entry meetings are added it don't show the error.
> I believe that serious advisable that these two entry did not depend the
> one on the other and worked separately.

Well, obviously the _color option depends on the rc_fancy option being 
enabled, otherwise it doesn't make sense, however you can of course have 
rc_fancy enabled with rc_fancy_color disabled.

> Another failure with which I have been is that after apply the patch and
> to take the normal system, without the entry rc_fancy * the system does
> not show such messages exactly, leave several points between the lines of
> the services.
> Ej:
> starting sendmail
> .
> .
> .
> starting apache
> 
> and it would have to see itself of the following way:
> 
> starting sendmail
> starting apache

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 shows
> 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



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------