Re: Some ideas about the Debian Runlevel System
to, 30-01-2003 kello 11:41, Gerfried Fuchs kirjoitti:
> Of course not. And there is no way to partition use of mutt config
> that will work for all people. Your point was?
True enough.
> And I simply don't grok that statement. _Why_ do so many people think
> that way? What is different if the sysadmins have to change the
> runlevel links from one way to their likes instead of from another way
> to their likes? There simply is *no* difference imnsho.
There is actually a big difference: the current Debian way is simple and
easy to understand. It doesn't lead to unwarranted assumptions like "I'm
a networking daemon, so we must be running in runlevel FOO, so that
other daemon must also be running". (Seen that.) It doesn't lead to
people thinking that you have to switch runlevels in order to start or
stop services. By not imposing a pre-defined (even if avoidable) system,
we simplify the world for us and for our users. I think that's a good
thing. The only drawback seems to be an occasional iteration of this
discussion.
> that doesn't want to fiddle with it but have sensible defaults (that is,
> not four times the completely same runlevel).
I happen to disagree that anything else than our current system would be
a sensible default. Most people do not need to keep turning services on
and off all the time, especially not en masse, and thus they benefit
from having a simple system where they don't have to worry about
runlevels at all.
> > I seem to recall several runlevel schemes having been suggested
> > throughout the years.
>
> Like the LSB-scheme. Aren't we longing for LSB-conformance?
Possibly. I see no point in doing things badly to achieve LSB
conformance, though. This runlevel thing seems to be one point where I'm
willing to be non-conforming by default. Debian requires installing the
lsb package to achieve conformance, and that package can do things to
force an LSB runlevel scheme, if such a scheme is really necessary for
conformance. (I find it disappointing, however, if the LSB specifies
runlevels in that detail. The sysadmin must always have the freedom to
rearrange things, so even LSB conformant packages shouldn't depend on
particular runlevel assignmens.)
Reply to: