I like my rc.d boot messages :(

[Andresen, Jason R.]

On Thursday 24 July 2008 16:30:33 Miroslav Lachman wrote:
>> JoaoBR wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >>>>I'd go further: it was nice when startup scripts printed their
>name
>> >>>>(no newline) and then '.\n' when they were finished.  It then
>becomes
>> >>>>unambiguous who is at fault.  It's hard to tell with the current
>> >>>>non-system which of the 2 scrpts (the one that has printed it's
>name,
>> >>>>or the one that next prints it's name) is at fault.  Worse.. it
>could
>> >>>>be the quiet script in between.
>> >>>
>> >>>Agreed, but you could delineate it with something other than '\n"
>too.
>> >>>Like '[amd] [smtp] [dhcpd] ...', with the ']' meaning the script
is
>> >>>done and has moved on to the next service.
>> >>
>> >>I like that. [ means processing has started, name is the
>service/script
>> >>runnging, ] means processing of that script has completed.  All
the
>info
>> >>you need for multiple services, all on one line.
>> >
>> > simply another wiered outcome - not understandable btw same as
this
>> > mystical dot thing
>> >
>> > something more obvious would be:
>> >
>> > starting $service_name  ... up
>> > starting $service_name  ... up
>> > ...
>> >
>> > that would be something clear, specially for whom did not invented
>it
>>
>> It seems too verbose. (does anybody expect "stoping" service on
system
>> boot?) And each service on separate line seems to me like vaste of
>space.
>> Line like "[ssh] [smtp] [dhcpd] [mysql]" is enough for me.
>> It is easy to document it in handbook and man pages.
>>
>> Just my 0.02
>>
>
>well, the obvious often is'nt :)
> for me it would be something like:
>
> starting $service_name  ... up
> starting $service_name  ... failed
> starting $service_name  ... up
>

Personally, I'd like a mix between your above suggestion and the
current method:

Starting Services:  sshd...ok, httpd...ok, ftpd...failed