[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:14:45 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> said: 

> 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?

        The Debian technical policy does no such thing. Could yopu
 point to me the section that says otherwise, if you think I am wrong?
 Certainly, some Debian developers have expressed support for the LSB,
 and have put in work to ensure we comply where we can, but there is
 no mandated policy which is being ignored here.

> (2) The differentiated runlevels by default *do* have practical, and
> in many cases important, utilizations (the X-freezing is a good
> example). Why not?

        There is nothing that states that there is a run level schema
 that would fit most users better than the one we have now. We have
 mechanisms to allow for starting, or not, of daemons at far fner
 granularity than a static, 3-more-diffrentiated-levels schemas that I
 have seen.

> (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?

        It is work, and most users seem to not care. The few that do,
 often do not agree with each other about what a run level schema
 oughty to look like.

> (4) It *does* generate an unnecessary difference between Debian and
> *all* *other* distros, with no reasonable motive at all.

        We differ on what we considered reasonable.

> 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.

	Shrug. Talk to the people whoi do the work, then, or those
 responsible for these packages.

To be or not to be, that is the bottom line.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: