Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]

[Milan Zamazal <pdm@fi.muni.cz>]

I know nothing about runlevel standards, just my opinions:

>>>>> "AK" == Alexander Koch <efraim@desire.camelot.de> writes:

    AK: level 1 is without net, 2 is with it all (imo including nfs
    AK: and the like) and 3 is xdm, 6 was shutdown or halt or
    AK: whatsoever.  at least that i remember from some german
    AK: distribution.

I'm no big sysadmin but I think we can use all 1 to 4 levels.  One
free runlevel could be enough (in actually, if *I* need some
modifications, I make them by modifying existing runlevels not
creating new ones).

    AK: default runlevel is 2 so why should nfs start with 3?

I'd like something similar to:
1: single user
2: multiuser with minimal networking, probably without offering services
3: full networking (NFS, xfs, anonymous ftp, ...)
4: xdm? (yes, it is common on Slackware and RedHat to start xdm
   according to runlevel, but maybe Debian /etc/X11/config concept is
   better)
5: empty for making special local runlevel?

So if I want to do something without being too used from outer world,
I can switch to level 2 (and I can still telnet or ftp somewhere).

    AK: if 3 gets xdm, perhaps gpm should be disabled and the like?

Remark: gpm should be disabled only when it doesn't work as a
repeater.

BTW, I don't like RedHat concept of empty level *4*.  When I upgraded
HW on some RedHat machine, I lowered default level from 5 to 4 in
expection it will disable just xdm.  Then I spent an hour looking for
explanation, why many services don't start after changing HW.  After I
explored runlevel 4 was empty, I was far from being polite...

Milan Zamazal


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .