On Thursday 24 July 2008 12:33:51 Freddie Cash wrote:
quoted text
> 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@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


-- 

João







A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik  https://datacenter.matik.com.br
_______________________________________________
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"