[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ] Winfried Truemper: > Serious: something difficult to understand is more likely to be messed up > than a simple scheme. No, I really don't see the "robustness" of links. With the current scheme: we create or remove one or more symlinks. If there is an error, the other links will almost certainly still work. With your proposed scheme (as far as I can understand it): we modify a text file. If there is an error, the likelyhood that it effects many lines (and therefore, many other "links" and runlevels) is much greater. The number of ways a file can have syntax errors is huge. This is a simple risk analysis. The runlevel information is critical, and we should avoid taking risks when the benefits are small. Replacing the directories with symlinks with a text file does not give enough benefit to be worth the risk. IMHO, of course. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work on making it easier to edit runlevel information. We should. But the tool should change the links, not modify a text file. BTW, do you already have a working tool, or should I take a look at Red Hat? InfoMagic kindly sent me their 6-disk package again, and I've been meaning to look at RH anyway. -- Please read <http://www.iki.fi/liw/mail-to-lasu.html> before mailing me. Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list.
Description: PGP signature