Discussion of runlevels (was: Re: group of Java maintainers ...)
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Could be, but it may not be necessary, since all the necesary software is
> already available in Debian. Also this 'mode' could be made available on
> regular Debian machine (as a special runlevel for example?)
Yes, that would certainly be a good option. But first we (or actually
'you' because I'm "only" a user, but I won't hesitate to open my mouth)
would have to discuss what would be the purpose of each runlevel, i.e.:
mandatory:
0 - halt
1 - single user
6 - reboot
example for the others:
2 - multi user with no servers running
3 - multi user (text mode)
4 - multi user (text mode) with X also running (using xdm)
5 - X running (with only one or no console login)
The above scheme is what I use on my own system. It normally boots into
runlevel 4 and that is what I mostly use -- I am writing this on a VC but
I switch to X for Netscape, knews and xv. Of course, this is not what I
think a default Debian system ought to be. It is just an example and I
think it is better than the 'runlevels 2 to 5 are the same' approach
Debian is currently using.
Perhaps runlevels 7 to 9 could also be used? I know "traditional" Unix
variants don't use them, but that shoudn't be an argument for Debian not
using them. They should just be documented properly, as all runlevels
should be.
I think it is too late to discuss this before Debian 2.0 is released, but
Debian 2.1 would be a good goal for implementing a 'Runlevel Policy', IMO.
Remco
--
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 .
Reply to: