Re: Strang shutdown mechanism with Debian
In article <[🔎] 19980518221139.F13509@tapiola.infodrom.north.de>,
Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.north.de> wrote:
>On Mon, May 18, 1998 at 09:36:12PM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> No, as I said there's not enough space in K90-K99. But the other option
>> is not too bad - we could indeed extend the runlevels to allow numbers
>> from 100-999 as well, which would run after 0-99. It would not be strictly
>> alphabetically anymore though. Or maybe allow hex numbers? KA0 - KAF or
>> so.. that would keep the alphabetical order in tact.
>
>Sorry, I object. Could you explain that more detailed? Why 9
>levels aren't enough to catch the scripts?
Well, we already have K91apache, so only K92 - K99 are available. It's
almost impossible to fix this on existing running systems you know. We
also have to assume a user has not used K92 - K99 him/herself (which
we can't) or otherwise the system will break.
We already use 5 K levels, and people may want to add more. We only have
8 K levels free if we asume they are not used by the local sysadm.
What if we choose to use
K92sendsigs
K93urandom
K94umountfs
K95mdutils.sh
K99halt
When I want to insert a "foobar" script between sendsigs and urandom, that's
no problem. I can use K93foobar. But at that moment K93 has been used twice,
something you want to avoid. Because now package "argh" comes along and you
want to put it between K93foobar and K93urandom .. impossible unless you
change the name.
That's why I said it's better to use sparse allocation of the Kxx links.
Because however unlikely this scheme sounds, Murphy's law guarantees a
situation like this will surface.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to speed up time,
miquels@cistron.nl | eventually eliminating it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: