[PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6

[Danny Braniss]

> Coleman Kane wrote:
> > On 4/20/06, *Eric Anderson* <anderson at centtech.com 
> > <mailto:anderson at 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 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
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 
> This looks good. I only wonder about two things now:
> 
> - Should we also have a line for the actual colors used too?  Or is that 
> going too crazy?
> 
> - Does it meet style(9)?  I'm wondering about line lengths now.
> 
> Other than that, do we have general consensus that these do what they 
> claim?  Any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed?
> 
> 

is the information correct? for example:
Running start savecore                                                 [FAILED]
Running start virecover                                                [FAILED]

the above didn't fail, they just had nothing to do.

there is a danger with false negatives, it tends to confuse the uninitiated,
there is a also a problem with false positives:
Running start geli2                                                    [  OK  ]
Running start mixer                                                    [  OK  ]

these do nothing, no geli2 nor mixer.

The problem is one of interpretation, what does OK realy mean?

one of the things i dislike with Linux is the amount of information printed when booting,
it just wisks by, and when things don't work it's not clear what caused it!

just to show that you are not alone:
Apr 19 12:24:33 gto postgres[43823]: [2-1] FATAL:  the database system is starting up

danny