Re: periodic emails

On 2. Jan 2012, at 22:51 , Doug Barton wrote:

> On 01/02/2012 14:49, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> =
wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2012 14:14, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>    How does this look for starters? The attached patch's goal is to
>>>> provide a generic, rc(5)-like infrastructure that would quiet down =
the
>>>> periodic emails for 120.clean-preserve .
>>>=20
>>> The periodic scripts are badly in need of attention, so effort in =
that
>>> area is much appreciated.
>>>=20
>>> Regarding your patch, rather than copying functions from rc.subr, =
why
>>> not just source it? Yes, you will get more than you need, but I =
think
>>> that the virtue of not having to maintain the same code in 2 places =
far
>>> outweighs that minor drawback.
>>=20
>>    That works too, assuming that rc.subr isn't too rc(5) centric.
>=20
> Well of course it's rc-centric, but that's not the point. :)  If =
you're
> going to be using the exact same code from rc.subr, you might as well
> just source it. The things that you'll get by doing that which are =
only
> relevant to rc you just ignore.
>=20
>> Thanks for the feedback!
>=20
> Glad to help.

While the checkyesno code for sure is great to handle all these options
everywhere and doing some serious cleanup sweep.  I am all in favour of =
this.

But isn't the real problem here deferring the output of the header =
depending
on the other output or even just the correct exit code?

Looking at periodic(8) it says:

     Each script is required to exit with one of the following values:

     0     The script has produced nothing notable in its output.  The
           <basedir>_show_success variable controls the masking of this =
out-
           put.

     1     The script has produced some notable information in its =
output.
           The <basedir>_show_info variable controls the masking of this =
out-
           put.

     2     The script has produced some warnings due to invalid =
configuration
           settings.  The <basedir>_show_badconfig variable controls the =
mask-
           ing of this output.

     >2    The script has produced output that must not be masked.

Could it even be that if setting the correct "*_show_*" config option
could do the right thing for me already?  I have no clue how that =
"masking" is
done and in which category "has not produced any output but the heading"
would fall into and if other things would possibly be hidden as well?

/bz

--=20
Bjoern A. Zeeb                                 You have to have visions!
   It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do!

_______________________________________________
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"