Re: X and runlevels
> On 04 Sep 2000, Brian Mays <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Not quite. The FHS briefly mentions *System V's* runlevel 2 and
> > 3 (along with Berkley's multiuser state). It does not specify
> > anything about runlevels for Linux or any other OS.
Gerfried Fuchs <email@example.com> replied:
> O.k., you're right - it was on linuxbase.org. Which we support,
> according to their main-page. ... So, I'm asking, why we don't follow
> this guidelines?
Hmm ... Have you actually read the "Linux Standard Base Specification"?
There's not much there; they have hardly fleshed out any of the
specification. Personally, I hope that the impact of the whole LSB
project on Debian will be a few minor changes and that most of the
facilities required to be LSB compatible can be supplied by a single
"lsb" Debian package. That is a long way down the road, however.
> I don't see any contradiction with our current approach to leave it up
> to the user. That won't interfere IMHO, for the update-rc script (or
> what ever it's called) doesn't touch the links if any of them exists,
> right? So the user can still change 'em to her/his likes.
Go ahead and make a proposal that we adopt a particular runlevel scheme.
Then the developers can vote on it. It is true that the update-rc
script will still allow the system administrator to customize the links
to his or her own needs.
> Now, are we part of the linuxbase-project or aren't we? I know that
> it's not good to take everything without asking it - but the current
> setup is somewhat nonsense to me - 4 runlevels with the same setup....
Not really. Some of our members are providing input into the project,
but the LSB project doesn't have enough of a standard yet to adhere to,
even if we wanted to adhere to it.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com