Minor side issue, not related to doc, just pointing it out. I'm inclined to
file a bug report on this, but wanted to ask what you think first:
Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> [2014-08-27 13:42:23 +0300]:
> On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 07:18 -0600, Glenn Golden wrote:
> > else # PA is running
> > {
> > Don't start PA; # What exit code is supplied?
>
> Zero.
>
OK. But given that the intent is to indicate success even if PA is already
running, there's still something that imo is a minor bug: If you use -v with
--start, it always reports "daemon startup successful" even if what actually
happened was nothing:
#
# Begin here with daemon not running:
#
$ pulseaudio --start -v
I: [pulseaudio] main.c: Daemon startup successful. # Message useful
#
# Now daemon is already running. What if we --start it again?
#
$ pulseaudio --start -v # Does nothing
I: [pulseaudio] main.c: Daemon startup successful. # Message un-useful
I would argue that in the second case, "startup successful" is not a useful
report. I understand that the intent is to treat it as a successful operation
via the exit code, i.e. double-starting (with --start) is intended to be
benign, no argument about that. But imo, it should report "daemon already
running" (as typically done by other daemons in this case) rather than
"startup successful".
Why? Because it may be (imo, almost certainly is) of interest to the user
to know that he attempted to double-start PA: Even though doing so is
intended to be benign, it may nevertheless be indicative of an error in
his procedure, and he'd probably like to know about it.
I'm inclined to consider this a minor bug. Is it worth a report or too minor?
