[PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC

[Eric Anderson]

Brooks Davis wrote:
> 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.

Yes, true, but you'd still want to show something (I would think) in the 
  [ ]'s to keep it consistent.


Eric




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