On Mon, May 18, 1998 at 07:49:05PM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > In article <[🔎] oayaw0rkzt.fsf@burrito.fake>, > Adam P. Harris <apharris@burrito.onshore.com> wrote: > >Miquel, having a magical, different meaning of SXX scripts for run > >levels 0 and 6 is not just being unclean, it's making up a new level > >of uncleanness a rather antiquated and creaky but generally > >well-respected and working system (the SysV Init scheme). > > Yes, well, but what do you expect me to do about it then? It has been like > this for quite some time and I have proposed it first on debian-devel. > Nobody rejected the idea then. Maybe nobody understood it? I have to admit that the boot/shutdown mechanism is dangerous and needs good understanding of everything related. At least here's a second person understanding it. (hopefully) ;-) Miquel, now that we know that this is ugly, could we try to move the 0+6 Snn stop-scripts to 0+6K90-K99 (S99 could be reserved for halt/reboot)? Just as a longterm goal. I know that it would be difficult and too dangerous to change the behaviour today. This would mean persuading maintainers not to use rc[60].d/Snn scripts that need a stop lines. Regards, Joey -- / Martin Schulze * joey@infodrom.north.de * 26129 Oldenburg / / If you come from outside of Finland, you live in wrong country / / Featuring Debian GNU/Linux motd von irc.funet.fi /
Attachment:
pgpK19oMzb7Jh.pgp
Description: PGP signature