Re: PROPOSAL: defining a new runlevel, 4
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Shaleh wrote:
> >I would like to second this. I already had to set my machine up this
> >way by hand. It simply makes more sense. When I want XDM I switch
> >run-levels. Simple, easy. That is the whole point of run-levels. Put
> >different environments in different runlevels.
>
> How about this then:
>
> 2 = multi-user, no network, no X
> 3 = multi-user and network, no X
> 4 = multi-user, no network, X
> 5 = everything
Personally I'd much rather:
2 = as above
3 = as above
4 = multi-user, networking and X.
5 = 4; but left for the local SysAdmin to configure
> This uses up all the _traditionally_ available slots, but I don't know any
> reason why we couldn't use the whole range of numbers and capital letters.
> A local system administrator could define a number of states, if he
> wanted.
There is (was) some effect previously to get the Linux distributions all
looking similiar (kind of like the FHS, but broader). Setting up runlevels
and encouraging other vendors to have the same setup would further ease
any transition pain from distribution X to Debian.
Regards,
Anand.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: