Re: PROPOSAL: defining a new runlevel, 4

[Jim <jim@laney.edu>]

In the message identified by <[🔎] 199804210758.IAA28451@linda.lfix.co.uk>, "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

I have a request along these lines as a user:

First, create policy that reserves all of the possible names.
Then create policy that grants ten (10) slots to users, such that 
only the sysvinit maintainer can alter, presumably to set all 10
to a reasonable default, as 2, 3, 4 and 5 are now.

Then, no one touches or alters these 10 runlevels except end user/admins.

By the same token, no user/admin should use any of the other runlevels,
as these would be assigned as requested. I am seeing this as a way to
assign runlevels to have the same meaning to any package. (I use the
word "should" here, to mean that the user should definitely be warned,
but then gets to do whatever he or she wants, to her advantage or
detriment.)

-Jim


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