On Sun, 2010-04-11 at 18:03 +0000, Ben Gamari wrote:
> How are you planning on handling this issue? It seems like it's going to
> be quite difficult to distinguish between normal non-zero exit codes and
> actual failures (which _should_ go to the console, no?). Perhaps the
> task description ought to supply upstart with some indication of the
> severity of a non-zero exit code? It would be nice to eliminate this
> noise from the otherwise quite clean boot process in Lucid.
>
Upstart already allows a job to use the "normal exit" stanza to specify
which of its exit codes aren't actual failures, e.g.:
normal exit 1 2 SIGINT
The ureadahead jobs use those, the bug is that Upstart still logs the
error to the console even though it does.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
On Sun, 2010-04-11 at 18:03 +0000, Ben Gamari wrote:
> How are you planning on handling this issue? It seems like it's going to
> be quite difficult to distinguish between normal non-zero exit codes and
> actual failures (which _should_ go to the console, no?). Perhaps the
> task description ought to supply upstart with some indication of the
> severity of a non-zero exit code? It would be nice to eliminate this
> noise from the otherwise quite clean boot process in Lucid.
>
Upstart already allows a job to use the "normal exit" stanza to specify
which of its exit codes aren't actual failures, e.g.:
normal exit 1 2 SIGINT
The ureadahead jobs use those, the bug is that Upstart still logs the
error to the console even though it does.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?