> Clint Byrum wrote in comment #4 ...
> Complaining loudly is different than asserting, IMO, so I may have just
> misunderstood your intent.
My intent is to have a trail of crumbs when the expected events fail to happen.
If the boot sequence gets to runlevel 2 that is very different from
runlevel unknown . The OS may be up, at it could be argued that it is not
running properly. It would be nice if it said so.
Maybe there should be a final *.conf that says
assert event foo has happened
assert runlevel 2
assert mount /home
:
> I'm coming around to the idea of a keyword
>
> start on required foo
>
> Which would at tell upstart to check for emits after parsing all
> configs, and warn about the situation.
>
> I still question the value of enforcing this.
A console and/or log entry of the form
/etc/init/glurp.conf: failed: no required event foo
would be very useful, whether that failure was severe or just unfortunate.
A further analysis of
/etc/init/glurp.conf: required event foo: no emit found
would also help.
A stanza of the form
start on required foo from /etc/init/whiz.conf
might yield
/etc/init/glurp.conf: /etc/init/whiz.conf: not found
or
/etc/init/glurp.conf: /etc/init/whiz.conf: does not emit foo
> Scott James Remnant wrote in comment #5
> ... a system that complains about its configuration during boot, [is]
> complaining at the wrong person, the user.
Agreed. But at least it complains. The recent problems have been boot
sequences that _appear_ to be complete but in fact are not.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/585908
Title:
Document all events (was: cross-comment events and *.conf files)
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
