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

Re: runlevels remodeled

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:52:38AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Timo Aaltonen writes:
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in Debian?
I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:

Please check the archives.  This has been discussed many times.  It is
clear that there is going to be no change.

The last sentence is not true. For some of the compelling reasons as to
why this should change please review the last time we discussed this [0]
(when I brought the issue up in my TODO stuff for etch [1]).

Hmm, just proves that I can't do a proper search ;) Somehow I've missed those threads, but have read them now.

To break my proposal into two separate pieces, we have:

1) moving unnecessary stuff out of rcS.d

Seems to have gotten support from developers. Some disagreement whether NFS-mounts should or should not be done here. I'd say that without network you get no mounts, either ;) Those special installations that have /usr as a NFS-mount shouldn't need anything from there. Besides, automount is banned here so it's not an option.

Should there be a separate discussion as to what to move away?

2) define more out-of-the-box runlevels

This has been discussed before as pointed out. Some say that current situation is a feature, and others would like to see Debian take a similar scheme as other distributions. I think it is a moot point to say that having more multi-user runlevels confuses users, because ordinary users should never run into a situation where those are really needed. For sysadmins the change is a needed one. DIY-philosophy should actually be left to those who really want to customize their runlevels 2-5 =) Then those who like the proposal and those who have to bear with mixed environments can have their's left as default.

Here's my short summary of some situations where those different runlevels are needed:

1	single-user, no network, only rootfs (or all local fs's?) mounted

-pretty obvious

2	multi-user, no network services exported, no NFS

-more secure service-wise than 3
-RH has network here, although they claim that 2 is not used

3	full multi-user

-direct boot without X is useful if X breaks the console for some reason, more comfortable to work with than 1

4	as 3 but reserved for local use

5	full multi-user + X

-goes hand in hand with 3

I don't understand why the next-gen init would have problems with a setup like this.. If it uses dependencies, supporting a scheme like this shouldn't be a problem, no?

As with anything in Debian, it really depends on how much muscle is put
into it.

Hopefully so..

_______________/Timo Aaltonen <http://users.tkk.fi/~tjaalton>
Work: HUT/CC, GSM +358-50-5918781 (work) / +358-40-5549618 (personal)

Reply to: