[PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC

[Brooks Davis]

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:16:04PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> 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.

My feeling is that anything short of complete success should report
WARNING and a message unless it actually totally failed in which case
FAILED or ERROR (I slightly perfer ERROR) should be used.

-- Brooks

-- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20060501/e340ed51/attachment.pgp