On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 07:50 -0600, Glenn Golden wrote:
> 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?
If it's a bug, however minor, it's worth a report :) (And I agree that
this is a bug.) I see you decided to already file the bug report, thanks
for that!
--
Tanu
