On July 23, 2008 08:21 pm Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Daniel Eischen > > <deischen_at_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_at_gmail.comReceived on Thu Jul 24 2008 - 14:06:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:33 UTC