Re: PROPOSAL: defining a new runlevel, 4

["Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>]

Shaleh wrote:
  >I would like to second this.  I already had to set my machine up this
  >way by hand.  It simply makes more sense.  When I want XDM I switch
  >run-levels.  Simple, easy.  That is the whole point of run-levels.  Put
  >different environments in different runlevels.

How about this then:

   2  =  multi-user, no network, no X
   3  =  multi-user and network, no X
   4  =  multi-user, no network, X
   5  =  everything

This uses up all the _traditionally_ available slots, but I don't know any
reason why we couldn't use the whole range of numbers and capital letters.
A local system administrator could define a number of states, if he
wanted.

-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver

PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1

                 ========================================
    Come to me, all you who labour and are heavily laden, and I will
    give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am
    meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls.
    For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.    (Matthew 11: 28-30)



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org