Re: Runlevels vs. facility names (Re: Facility names for init scripts)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 11:35:59AM +0200, Bodo Meissner wrote:
>
> Why do we require all compliant distributions to use runlevels in the same
> way? There might be reasons for a different runlevel numbering scheme.
> Or there might be other ways to do the system initialization without
> runlevels at all. I think the definition of symbolic names (facilities)
> would be more flexible.
I believe the motivation was to allow the ISV to know what runlevels
they should default to on in their init scripts.
I would be interested in having something more flexible as well.
Cheers,
Matt
Reply to: