Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Maybe I can shed some light on this
** Manoj Srivastava ::
> > That common is common enough?
>
> Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you
> fashioned your run levels would make sense for, say, me.
> People whoi really want tailored run-levels often have
> very definite ideas about how these run-levels would be
> tailored; it is unlikely that a predefined solution
> designed by committee in Debian would suit their needs,
> and they would have to roll their own, anyway, and a
> predefined solution would just get in their way.
>
> _Why_ did you not create you own run level schema, BTW, if
> you have indeed needed them so often? (I haven't felt that
> itch yet, or I would have; creating differentiated run
> levels is not exactly rocket science).
I think this all evades the real questions, that are:
(1) LSB -- which Debian's policy vows to follow -- mandates the
default differentiated runlevels. Why are not doing it?
(2) The differentiated runlevels by default *do* have practical, and
in many cases important, utilizations (the X-freezing is a good
example). Why not?
(3) Substituting diferentiated runlevels by the old, 3-runlevel
scheme is relatively easy, as it is to create otherwise customized
runlevels, independently of where one comes from. So, why not?
(4) It *does* generate an unnecessary difference between Debian and
*all* *other* distros, with no reasonable motive at all.
IE, IMHO, Debian should adopt the 6-runlevel scheme dictated by the
LSB (0=off, 1=single, 2=multi,no-net, 3=multi, 4=5=multi+DM,
6=reboot) because (1) it's praxis to the other distros, (2) it's in
the LSB and (3) there is no good reason not to.
--
HTH,
Massa
Reply to: