Re: rc?.d policy?
>>>>> "BS" == Brian Servis <email@example.com> writes:
BS> But if a user removes the S99xdm link in rc2.d then the next
BS> time xdm is upgraded it will be added again. This issue of the
BS> package managment tools over writing what the system
BS> administrator sets has been debated before, in favor of the
BS> system administrator(Recall the /usr/doc/*.gz issue recently on
BS> -devel). This is what I was describing. Mike, or anyone else,
BS> can you clarify why Debian does not have a destinction between
BS> user runlevels for things like networking, X, etc?
As others have mentioned, this is not the case. However, also note
that there probably SHOULD be a link for each package in each runlevel
- changing a package to not start in a runlevel should be done by
moving the link to from the appropriate S*name to the appropriate
K*name, so that the proper things get stopped going down
runlevels. Otherwise, runlevels become non-deterministic - for
instance, if I remove the xdm link from runlevels 2 and 3, booting to
runlevel 4, then switching to runlevel 3 will result in runlevel 3
with xdm running, while booting to runlevel 3 will result in a
runlevel 3 without xdm running. If instead the link is moved to the
appropriate K link, switching from runlevel 4 to runlevel 3 kills xdm,
and now runlevel 3 is the same, whichever direction you cam from
(which is probably the intended behavior).
Larry Daffner | Linux: Unleash the workstation in your PC!
firstname.lastname@example.org / http://web2.airmail.net/vizzie/
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
pause and reflect." - Mark Twain