Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6

Coleman Kane wrote:
On 4/20/06, *Eric Anderson* <anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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


_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"