Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
- To: Yann Dirson <dirson@univ-mlv.fr>
- Cc: Alexander Koch <efraim@desire.camelot.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
- From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:45:35 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 19970601144535.01754@cistron.nl>
- In-reply-to: <199705301857.UAA00447@bylbo.nowhere.earth>; from Yann Dirson on Fri, May 30, 1997 at 08:57:28PM +0200
- References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970526120451.161A-100000@debian.dd.com> <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526122737.5089A-100000@citytel_prct3.citytel.net> <19970528133327.16145@desire.camelot.de> <199705282003.WAA00819@bylbo.nowhere.earth> <199705301857.UAA00447@bylbo.nowhere.earth>
According to Yann Dirson:
> That just go fine, until you try to use 'halt' or 'reboot': as
> specified in the manpage (yes :), these only call shutdown when in
> runlevel 1-5. Quite strange IMHO. *BE CAREFUL* trying to reproduce it,
> it (probably among other unclean things) doesn't unmount cleanly
> filesystems.
>
> I don't know the reason why RLs 7-9 are handled just like 0 and 6. I
> think it should at least be possible to choose which behaviour they
> have in this case, if the current behaviour is meaningful (IMHO, it is
> only meaningful for halt/reboot-like actions).
>
> Should this be considered as a bug ?
I'll fix it so that it test for (runlevel != 0 && runlevel != 6)
instead of (runlevel > 0 && runlevel < 6)
Mike.
--
| Miquel van Smoorenburg | "I need more space" "Well, why not move to Texas" |
| miquels@cistron.nl | "No, on my account, stupid." "Stupid? Uh-oh.." |
| PGP fingerprint: FE 66 52 4F CD 59 A5 36 7F 39 8B 20 F1 D6 74 02 |
--
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: