On Thursday 24 July 2008 12:33:51 Freddie Cash wrote: > 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. 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 -- Joćo A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.brReceived on Thu Jul 24 2008 - 16:17:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:33 UTC