[PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC

Eric Anderson anderson at centtech.com
Mon May 1 19:13:30 UTC 2006

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
>> and possibly also:
>> 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

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 


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

More information about the freebsd-hackers mailing list