JoaoBR wrote:

[...]

quoted text
>>>>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.
> 
> 
> simply another wiered outcome - not understandable btw same as this mystical 
> dot thing 
> 
> something more obvious would be:
> 
> starting $service_name  ... up
> starting $service_name  ... up
> ...
> 
> that would be something clear, specially for whom did not invented it

It seems too verbose. (does anybody expect "stoping" service on system 
boot?) And each service on separate line seems to me like vaste of space.
Line like "[ssh] [smtp] [dhcpd] [mysql]" is enough for me.
It is easy to document it in handbook and man pages.

Just my 0.02

Miroslav Lachman
_______________________________________________
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"