On Thu, 17.02.11 13:46, Miklos Vajna (vmik...@frugalware.org) wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 01:11:36AM +0100, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > Hmm, I am kinda keen on keeping the fsck output also in syslog, hence > > just switching the output from syslog to tty is not ideal. Maybe we > > should add a mechanism so that we can output things to syslog and > > console at the same time. (i added this now to the todo list) > > I just saw you implemented it. ;)
Yupp, I did! And the fsck services now use it by default. > > Another option could be to use -C <fd> to direct the normal output of > > fsck to syslog, but the progress bar to the console. > > The problem is that -C itself prints the nice progressbar, while -C2 (so > we could save stdout to log and have stderr on console only) prints out > progressbar info which is suitable in case you want to parse it from a > GUI. Ah, I see. Sucks. > > I guess the combination of -C <fd> to direct the progress bar to the > > console plus StandardOutput=syslog+console would be pretty good. the > > progress bar makes no sense in the logs anyway. > > Sure. > > So - do you have a better idea than poking the e2fsprogs guys to add a > new switch (or env var, etc.) that will turn the progressbar on fd != 0 > to something user-friendly? Would be cool if we could convince them, but ideally even in some way that we can just pass --progress-bar=/dev/console or so. i.e. take a file name instead of an fd. Karel? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
