On July 23, 2008 08:21 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Daniel Eischen
> > <deischen@freebsd.org>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >> than 'start'.  Am I the only one who finds it useful to know which
> >> daemon
> >>
> >>> is
> >>> making my startup hang for an extra second?
> >>
> >> No, you are not.  I too would like that.
> >
> > I'd go further: it was nice when startup scripts printed their name
> > (no newline) and then '.\n' when they were finished.  It then becomes
> > unambiguous who is at fault.  It's hard to tell with the current
> > non-system which of the 2 scrpts (the one that has printed it's name,
> > or the one that next prints it's name) is at fault.  Worse.. it could
> > be the quiet script in between.
>
> Agreed, but you could delineate it with something other than '\n" too.
> Like '[amd] [smtp] [dhcpd] ...', with the ']' meaning the script is
> done and has moved on to the next service.

I like that. [ means processing has started, name is the service/script 
runnging, ] means processing of that script has completed.  All the info 
you need for multiple services, all on one line. 

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwcash@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"