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
pgpGZpW4qASAi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
