[PATCH] lshal - The next generation

[Richard Hughes]

On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 08:33 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 13:41 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > In:
> > static void usage (int argc, char *argv[])
> > 
> > Why are we printing to stderr? We appear to be using stderr to output
> > all the screen output, which I appreciate the original lshal did. Should
> > this not be stdout?
> 
> No, it needs to be stderr because we print normal information using
> stdout and programs launching lshal might grep for this. Now, if things
> fail we don't want to confuse the program launching lshal in case it
> doesn't check if the return code is non-zero. Printing errors to stderr,
> not stdout, is pretty standard practice I think :-)

But we print lots stuff to stderr, like the usage text, and all the
monitor output text -- shouldn't this be stdout?

Richard.