Comment 6 for bug 203169

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:57:35PM +0200, <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> I don't think this is a sufficient specification. We should make it
> clear what status should display in the different case:

Hmm.. When I'm asking for a status, I'm asking for a status of a given
daemon, not a status of what the init script does. How about the
following:

for each daemon that the init.d might start;
do
1- daemon is running
1.a- but has not been started up by init.d script
1.b- and was started by the init.d script
2- daemon is not running
2.a- and the init.d script will not start it
2.a.a- since configuration is missing
2.a.b- since it is configured not to
2.b- but was started by init and FAILED
2.c- since it was stopped by init
done

User messages (and exit status) could be tailored down to provide that
info:

1.a- Checking XXX daemon: running.
1.b- Checking XXX daemon: running (not started by init.d)
2.a.a- Checking XXX daemon: stopped (daemon not configured)
2.a.b- Checking XXX daemon: stopped (init.d disabled)
2.b - Checking XXX daemon: stopped (FAILED)
2.c - Checking XXX daemon: stopped

How does it sound like?

Javier