[pulseaudio-discuss] Non-useful report when double-starting with "--start"

[Tanu Kaskinen]

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