On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:01:25PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > (3) Substituting diferentiated runlevels by the old, 3-runlevel > > scheme is relatively easy, as it is to create otherwise customized > > runlevels, independently of where one comes from. So, why not? > It is work, and most users seem to not care. The few that do, > often do not agree with each other about what a run level schema > oughty to look like. There's pretty strong agreement, actually, that it should look like the one used by Red Hat et al., which is clearly defined and has a long history... > > IE, IMHO, Debian should adopt the 6-runlevel scheme dictated by the > > LSB (0=off, 1=single, 2=multi,no-net, 3=multi, 4=5=multi+DM, > > 6=reboot) because (1) it's praxis to the other distros, (2) it's in > > the LSB and (3) there is no good reason not to. > Shrug. Talk to the people whoi do the work, then, or those > responsible for these packages. So you would have the maintainers of the display manager packages implement these changes unilaterally? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature