Coleman Kane wrote:
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:29:20PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
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
What situations are we determining get flagged as ERROR versus FAILED?
Is FAILED considered to be 'I was able to run the command, but it
returned an error code', versus ERROR being 'I could not even run the
command!' like bad path, file not found, etc...
This point still kind of confuses me (and needs to be well defined). I
am an advocate of having three distinct messages: OK, SKIPPED, ERROR.
And not even bothering with the different types of ERROR/FAILED other
than having extra reporting output.
I'm ok with just OK, SKIPPED, ERROR.. If there's ever a need for more,
it's easy to add it.
Eric
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
