Re: Debian runlevels not documented enough
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 23:41, Dan Jacobson wrote:
| In Bug#325234 I pointed out that Debian runlevels are probably not
| documented enough.
i google'd for 'Debian runlevel'.
First english document it came up with was newbiedoc.
Debian has it as package 'newbiedoc',
and it includes a section about runlevels.
So it looks like runlevels themselves are well documented.
The link to init(8) in policy is probably meant to be interpreted
in same way as newbiedoc explains runlevels :
look in /etc/init.d to see de facto definition of runlevels.
In thread you mention, it seems that
there are reasons for 3,4,5 to be and remain same as 2 on standard Debian
and this may change if Debian becomes LSB compliant
(but not if LSB becomes Debian-compliant).
If motivations mentioned in thread
would be edited into a succinct description,
i think it could be a good fit for
this 'introduction' section of Debian-policy,
especially if it simultaneously made that text more systematically built
(i think your 'first 8 lines' is a sound idea,
and a couple of extra paragraph breaks wouldn't hurt either).
It looks like information provided in thread enables you to write that.
Neither best-practices nor sysadmin-guide seem good fits for this info,
as LSB compliance may be better,
and it can't be relied upon staying like it is.
Trying to document 'text-mode Debian' seems like a mistake to me ;
there is no such thing.
It was interesting reading that thread,
i have symlinked 2,3,4,5 together on my system,
and had wondered why Debian shipped it like that.
| They told me to mention it on debian-doc.
Thanks guys !
have fun !
Siward de Groot
If the user is to be referred to as 'she',
should developers have been addressed as 'girls' in 'Thanks guys' above ?