Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
Hi,
Sorry for replying to an old message, but nobody has
responded to this particular question, so I give it
a try ...
Coleman Kane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One unfortunate thing about /bin/sh: [from the sh(1) manpage]
Only one of the -e and -n options may be specified.
This means that we may not be able to use the -n to chain multiple echos on
one line...
You can use the backslash sequence '\c' with echo -e, which
has the same effect as the -n option. See sh(1).
Another possibility is to use dd(1) to strip off the new-
line (dd(1) lives in /bin, so it's available during boot).
A shell function like this does it:
echo-en()
{
x=$*
echo -e $x | dd bs=$((${#x}-1)) count=1 2/dev/null
}
Although it's a bit less efficient because dd(1) is an
external binary, it's more flexible since it can be used
for all kinds of cutting and trimming (note that cut(1)
resides in /usr/bin).
Best regards
Oliver
--
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.
When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
-- Steve Haflich, in comp.lang.c++
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
Hey all, My webserver went down earlier this week, and I have moved my mail. I am in the arduous process of getting a new replacement. I apologize for the delay however, on the rc.subr colorization project, and hope to have the newest updates available again soon. -- Coleman Kane ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:32:33PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: Other than that, do we have general consensus that these do what they claim? Any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed? One request: Please remove the two seperate rc.conf lines, and replace with just one: rc_fancy= YES | NO | COL[O|OU]R So that it works line the sendmail_enable option (YES/NO/NONE) Then include any other tunables in rc_fancy_flags Definitely not a good idea to use that as a model: man rc.sendmail .. sendmail_enable (str) If set to ``YES'', run the sendmail(8) daemon at system boot time. If set to ``NO'', do not run a sendmail(8) daemon to listen for incoming network mail. This does not preclude a sendmail(8) daemon listening on the SMTP port of the loopback interface. The ``NONE'' option is deprecated and should not be used. It will be removed in a future release. .. Yes/no options should just be yes/no. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
On 4/23/06, Sean Winn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:32:33PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: Other than that, do we have general consensus that these do what they claim? Any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed? One request: Please remove the two seperate rc.conf lines, and replace with just one: rc_fancy= YES | NO | COL[O|OU]R So that it works line the sendmail_enable option (YES/NO/NONE) Then include any other tunables in rc_fancy_flags Definitely not a good idea to use that as a model: man rc.sendmail .. sendmail_enable (str) If set to ``YES'', run the sendmail(8) daemon at system boot time. If set to ``NO'', do not run a sendmail(8) daemon to listen for incoming network mail. This does not preclude a sendmail(8) daemon listening on the SMTP port of the loopback interface. The ``NONE'' option is deprecated and should not be used. It will be removed in a future release. .. Yes/no options should just be yes/no. Correct, I concur. This is especially true since the 'configuration check' function is checkyesno and looks for YES or NO values. In fact, I think that sendmail was the only one two use this convention. This was brought in to appease those who use qmail (or other mailservers) with an easy method of turning off sendmail's local 'spool' service, to instead use qmail (or whatever else you like...). I remember the convention not being very pleasant for those involved. -- coleman ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:32:33PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: 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? Eric It looks like freebsd.org (actually SpamCop) might finally be blocking gmail now :(... I sent the following and it got bounced: There was a small defect in the recent version of this script that caused the line width to be too big on the syscons console. I modified it and posted it at: http://www.cokane.org/files/rc_fancy-cokane3.patch -- coleman kane ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
On 4/21/06, David Barbero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Anderson escribió: After to apply the patch, so that it works is necessary to put in rc.conf rc_fancy=YES , when put this single entry, the system gives errors saying that correctly this entry in rc.conf is not correctly defined, adding single rc_fancy_color=YES gives the same error. If the two entry meetings are added it don't show the error. I believe that serious advisable that these two entry did not depend the one on the other and worked separately. Well, obviously the _color option depends on the rc_fancy option being enabled, otherwise it doesn't make sense, however you can of course have rc_fancy enabled with rc_fancy_color disabled. yes, this is obvious, but i say rc_fancy depends on the rc_fancy_color, disabled or no, in rc.conf, if you don't put a entry for rc_fancy_color in rc.conf, the boot menssage show error. 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. Ok, i will probe this patch in a few days and tell you for this. Probably Sunday can say something, right now I am of business trip and I do not have my PC of tests here... 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? I think a _verbose option don't for now, but can will be interesting. In any case I talked about that if you don't start a service (Ex: geli_enable=NO in rc.conf) at boot time, in your patch this service it's show, and IMHO, if the service don't start at bootup, then don't show startup. 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? Sorry for my English :) Yes, of course. in rc.conf: geli_enable=NO inetd_enable=NO And when yo reboot, the bootup menssage show: geli service [OK] inetd service [OK] And I believe that this menssage don't show on startup, or in the case of show the messange, this don't show the [OK], in that case, show [SKIP], for 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? My syslogd work properly whitout any error, but give a false positive, I will be probe the last patch and I will try to see if I locate the failure, but will have Sunday... I see other fail in show the fancy_* when I have activated vidcontrol to 1024x764, but this is but so that it is pretty that an operation failure, IMHO is not important... Thanks for all the feedback and testing! :) Eric Regards There was a small defect in the recent version of this script that caused the line width to be too big on the syscons console. I modified it and posted it at: http://www.cokane.org/files/rc_fancy-cokane3.patch --coleman kane ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:32:33PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: Other than that, do we have general consensus that these do what they claim? Any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed? One request: Please remove the two seperate rc.conf lines, and replace with just one: rc_fancy= YES | NO | COL[O|OU]R So that it works line the sendmail_enable option (YES/NO/NONE) Then include any other tunables in rc_fancy_flags ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
Coleman Kane wrote: On 4/20/06, *Eric Anderson* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
Eric Anderson escribió: After to apply the patch, so that it works is necessary to put in rc.conf rc_fancy=YES , when put this single entry, the system gives errors saying that correctly this entry in rc.conf is not correctly defined, adding single rc_fancy_color=YES gives the same error. If the two entry meetings are added it don't show the error. I believe that serious advisable that these two entry did not depend the one on the other and worked separately. Well, obviously the _color option depends on the rc_fancy option being enabled, otherwise it doesn't make sense, however you can of course have rc_fancy enabled with rc_fancy_color disabled. yes, this is obvious, but i say rc_fancy depends on the rc_fancy_color, disabled or no, in rc.conf, if you don't put a entry for rc_fancy_color in rc.conf, the boot menssage show error. 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. Ok, i will probe this patch in a few days and tell you for this. Probably Sunday can say something, right now I am of business trip and I do not have my PC of tests here... 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? I think a _verbose option don't for now, but can will be interesting. In any case I talked about that if you don't start a service (Ex: geli_enable=NO in rc.conf) at boot time, in your patch this service it's show, and IMHO, if the service don't start at bootup, then don't show startup. 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? Sorry for my English :) Yes, of course. in rc.conf: geli_enable=NO inetd_enable=NO And when yo reboot, the bootup menssage show: geli service [OK] inetd service [OK] And I believe that this menssage don't show on startup, or in the case of show the messange, this don't show the [OK], in that case, show [SKIP], for 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? My syslogd work properly whitout any error, but give a false positive, I will be probe the last patch and I will try to see if I locate the failure, but will have Sunday... I see other fail in show the fancy_* when I have activated vidcontrol to 1024x764, but this is but so that it is pretty that an operation failure, IMHO is not important... Thanks for all the feedback and testing! :) Eric Regards -- Linux is for people who hate Windows, BSD is for people who love UNIX Social Engineer - Because there is no patch for human stupidity ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
Eric Anderson escribió: Thanks to Rick Petty for pointing me in the right direction (man page!), here's the latest, and I think solid patch (for RELENG-6): http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-6 Eric Hi all. I have found several anomalies operations in the patch. After to apply the patch, so that it works is necessary to put in rc.conf rc_fancy=YES , when put this single entry, the system gives errors saying that correctly this entry in rc.conf is not correctly defined, adding single rc_fancy_color=YES gives the same error. If the two entry meetings are added it don't show the error. I believe that serious advisable that these two entry did not depend the one on the other and worked separately. Another failure with which I have been is that after apply the patch and to take the normal system, without the entry rc_fancy * the system does not show such messages exactly, leave several points between the lines of the services. Ej: starting sendmail . . . starting apache and it would have to see itself of the following way: starting sendmail starting apache 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. 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 ]. 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... In principle this is what I have seen at first sight on the patch. Regards. -- Linux is for people who hate Windows, BSD is for people who love UNIX Social Engineer - Because there is no patch for human stupidity ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
David Barbero wrote: Eric Anderson escribió: Thanks to Rick Petty for pointing me in the right direction (man page!), here's the latest, and I think solid patch (for RELENG-6): http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-6 Eric Hi all. I have found several anomalies operations in the patch. After to apply the patch, so that it works is necessary to put in rc.conf rc_fancy=YES , when put this single entry, the system gives errors saying that correctly this entry in rc.conf is not correctly defined, adding single rc_fancy_color=YES gives the same error. If the two entry meetings are added it don't show the error. I believe that serious advisable that these two entry did not depend the one on the other and worked separately. Well, obviously the _color option depends on the rc_fancy option being enabled, otherwise it doesn't make sense, however you can of course have rc_fancy enabled with rc_fancy_color disabled. Another failure with which I have been is that after apply the patch and to take the normal system, without the entry rc_fancy * the system does not show such messages exactly, leave several points between the lines of the services. Ej: starting sendmail . . . starting apache and it would have to see itself of the following way: starting sendmail starting apache 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 -- Eric AndersonSr. Systems AdministratorCentaur 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]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
Coleman Kane wrote: On 4/20/06, *Eric Anderson* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? Eric -- Eric AndersonSr. Systems AdministratorCentaur 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]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
On 4/20/06, Eric Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coleman Kane wrote: 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? Definately... I think having the ability to specify colorsets as profiles will be a must-have. Read the LSCOLORS description in ls(1). - Does it meet style(9)? I'm wondering about line lengths now. One unfortunate thing about /bin/sh: [from the sh(1) manpage] Only one of the -e and -n options may be specified. This means that we may not be able to use the -n to chain multiple echos on one line... Other than that, do we have general consensus that these do what they claim? Any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed? Eric --coleman ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
On 4/20/06, Eric Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- Coleman Kane ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
Eric Anderson wrote: Eric Anderson wrote: Bill Vermillion wrote: Somewhere around Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 04:07 , the world stopped and listened as [EMAIL PROTECTED] graced us with this profound tidbit of wisdom that would fulfill the enjoyment of future generations: Message: 20 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:07:31 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric Anderson wrote: If I could figure out how to make sh do colors, I'd do it. :) Please do not use colors in rc. Escape-sequenced colors make unacceptable assumptions about the user and syslogd strips escape sequences anyway, so it would be of no use to logged consoles. Serial consoles introduce other problems with buggy escape handling in third-party terminal programs. A good text layout and descriptive status messages do far more for clarity and readability than any use of color ever can. Let me add to that. About 10% of the male population has some color vision problem. Mine is a bit more than others. Everytime I get called to work on a Linux system, I have to go in and disable the colors as the reds and other colors become very hard to see against a dark background. The problem is the luminance value of colors such a red is quite low compared to others. That's one of the reasons why fire-trucks in this area are lime-green, as red trucks disappear into the blackness at night. If you add color make sure it is a user selectable option and not turned on by default. IMO everything you need to admin a system needs to be able to run on something as lowly as a pure serial terminal as the above poster notes. Ok. So I've received mass amounts of mail regarding this, and most of it has been positively in favor of having the option to enable the rc_fancy, and then an additional option to turn on coloring, with the default to be non-colored but still rc_fancy=YES which should work ok on serial and other terminals (it did for me). I completely agree about all the coloring comments, and terminal issues. I personally think it should be an available option, easily enabled or disabled at will. I've put up an updated version, with many changes. This version includes optional coloring (with rc_fancy_color=YES in rc.conf), better checking, cleaner coding, and no loops. This version is *much* more refined than the others - thanks for all the hints everyone! http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-5 Looks like this version does something strange - from an xterm, the spacing is correct, but from console, it doesn't do anything with the \033[71G in the echo. I've played with term types, but can't seem to make it act the same under console as it does in an xterm. Anyone know the issue? Thanks to Rick Petty for pointing me in the right direction (man page!), here's the latest, and I think solid patch (for RELENG-6): http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-6 Eric -- Eric AndersonSr. Systems AdministratorCentaur 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]
Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC - v6
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 16:39, Eric Anderson wrote: Eric Anderson wrote: Eric Anderson wrote: Bill Vermillion wrote: Somewhere around Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 04:07 , the world stopped and listened as [EMAIL PROTECTED] graced us with this profound tidbit of wisdom that would fulfill the enjoyment of future generations: Message: 20 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:07:31 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric Anderson wrote: If I could figure out how to make sh do colors, I'd do it. :) Please do not use colors in rc. Escape-sequenced colors make unacceptable assumptions about the user and syslogd strips escape sequences anyway, so it would be of no use to logged consoles. Serial consoles introduce other problems with buggy escape handling in third-party terminal programs. A good text layout and descriptive status messages do far more for clarity and readability than any use of color ever can. Let me add to that. About 10% of the male population has some color vision problem. Mine is a bit more than others. Everytime I get called to work on a Linux system, I have to go in and disable the colors as the reds and other colors become very hard to see against a dark background. The problem is the luminance value of colors such a red is quite low compared to others. That's one of the reasons why fire-trucks in this area are lime-green, as red trucks disappear into the blackness at night. If you add color make sure it is a user selectable option and not turned on by default. IMO everything you need to admin a system needs to be able to run on something as lowly as a pure serial terminal as the above poster notes. Ok. So I've received mass amounts of mail regarding this, and most of it has been positively in favor of having the option to enable the rc_fancy, and then an additional option to turn on coloring, with the default to be non-colored but still rc_fancy=YES which should work ok on serial and other terminals (it did for me). I completely agree about all the coloring comments, and terminal issues. I personally think it should be an available option, easily enabled or disabled at will. I've put up an updated version, with many changes. This version includes optional coloring (with rc_fancy_color=YES in rc.conf), better checking, cleaner coding, and no loops. This version is *much* more refined than the others - thanks for all the hints everyone! http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-5 Looks like this version does something strange - from an xterm, the spacing is correct, but from console, it doesn't do anything with the \033[71G in the echo. I've played with term types, but can't seem to make it act the same under console as it does in an xterm. Anyone know the issue? Thanks to Rick Petty for pointing me in the right direction (man page!), here's the latest, and I think solid patch (for RELENG-6): http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/patches/rc_fancy.patch-6 Eric Looks really good to me :) Regards, Pieter de Goeje ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
