Bug#672929: fancy output result should be on the right

tags 672929 +wontfix
thanks

Hi Peter,

First, thanks for your bugreport: I was somehow expecting a bug like yours.

Le lundi, 14 mai 2012 21.23:51, vous avez écrit :
> The new fancy output is neat and all, but it looks backwards, because
> it's
> 
> [ ok ] Doing something
> 
> where the "ok" comes after the doing.

The main reason for this decision is the size of the modern console screens: 
having the status blocks on the right makes them hard to connect back to their 
source in the rare occasions when you can still see them; given that X starts 
earlier and earlier these days and that ttys wipe the first screen at the end 
of the boot...

> The normal progression should go from left to right, and so the "ok" should
> be on the right side.

I understand that reasoning.

> This has also been long established practice in other distributions
> (last time I checked), so I don't see why Debian needs to do this
> differently.  Please rethink this.

This is overridable by both admins and derivative distributions through an 
/etc/lsb-base-logging.sh file. The next src:lsb release will allow packages 
and admins to drop snippets sourced by /lib/lsb/init-functions in 
/lib/lsb/init-functions.d/ (see 0202e4d6 commit from packaging repository); so 
this could definitely be overriden by a `lsb-info-blocks-right` package (which 
could even be a binary package built from src:lsb ; patches welcome).

(We could even imagine two lsb-info-blocks-{left,right} packages which would 
break eachother and be recommends of lsb-base; IMHO silly but I'm open to be 
convinced.)

I think choosing left or right info blocks positioning is a rather well 
balanced choice and I picked one of them. Given that either choice will make 
half users happy and the other half sad, I am not willing to play info blocks 
Pong: hereby tagging +wontfix.

Feel free to either provide patches for a new lsb-info-blocks-right package 
(better name welcome too), edit /etc/lsb-base-logging.sh on systems where it 
matters or widen the discussion to -devel or -ctte.

(I shall also note that I asked for opinions on -devel and only got positive 
feedback on this idea.)

Best regards,

OdyX

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=D/vu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----