Subject: Re: Cosmetic changes to rc.d scripts
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <>
From: Luke Mewburn <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 10/13/2004 10:29:07
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:30:36PM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
  | I've been doing some cosmetic changes to the rc.d scripts, based on what
  | I've seen lately on multiple Linux distributions.
  | The first one is the addition of a "comment" variable; this holds a str=
  | describing the purpose of the service handled by the rc.d script.
  | This comment is used in start/stop messages instead of the daemon name.
  | I think this is useful because you can see what's going on more easily;
  | specially, it will make novice's life easier (less criptic stuff).
  | For example, the inetd script includes 'comment=3D"Internet superserver=
  | so that, instead of "Starting inetd.", you'll see "Starting Internet
  | superserver (inetd)."  (yeah, the real name is kept at the end).

I personally found that behaviour (on Debian-unstale) to be annoying,
although it could make sense for rc.d scripts which control multiple
services (e.g, "samba" starting nmbd and smbd).

If we're going to 'pretty up' the output of the boot sequence, we
might as well offer add the status message at the RHS of the line
a la Redhat and HP-UX (?):

Starting bazd (Joe Blow's big azz service)                         [ failed=

  | What do you think about this?

I'll need to look at this in more detail.

IMHO, we need more consistency in our boot messages, not less.
I find Debian & Redhat to be "messy" whilst watching them boot;
the kernel is really messy, and the rc stuff isn't much better.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)