On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:14:45PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > Maybe I can shed some light on this > ** Manoj Srivastava :: > > > That common is common enough? > > Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you > > fashioned your run levels would make sense for, say, me. > > People whoi really want tailored run-levels often have > > very definite ideas about how these run-levels would be > > tailored; it is unlikely that a predefined solution > > designed by committee in Debian would suit their needs, > > and they would have to roll their own, anyway, and a > > predefined solution would just get in their way. > > _Why_ did you not create you own run level schema, BTW, if > > you have indeed needed them so often? (I haven't felt that > > itch yet, or I would have; creating differentiated run > > levels is not exactly rocket science). > I think this all evades the real questions, that are: > (1) LSB -- which Debian's policy vows to follow -- mandates the > default differentiated runlevels. No. Please read <http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/runlevels.html>. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature