Re: PROPOSAL: defining a new runlevel, 4
Branden Robinson <branden@purdue.edu> writes:
> In bashing my head against X for a while I've come to the realization that
> perhaps it's time we come up with some official policy regarding runlevels.
Yes... Solaris has it, so should we. ;)
> As it stands (as I understand it), runlevels 2 through 5 are presently
> identical in Debian. There is an ugly kludge in Debian XFree86 right now,
> involving "start-xdm" and "start-xfs" which can make things behave
> counterintuitively, and I'd like to get rid of these things.
> I'd like to kick xdm and xfs over to runlevels 4 and 5 (as RH and
> Slackware do, from what I gather on #debian). It doesn't matter to
> me what we define runlevel 3 as. We might as well leave it the same
> as 2 for now.
I disagree here. I think it's best we stick with proven Unix
practices rather than inventing our own because we feel like it.
0 - halt
1 - single user mode (emerg. maintenance)
2 - multi-user, no network serving
3 - full multiuser, network serving (where xdm, nfs, etc should start too)
4 - same as 3, up to local sysadmin
5 - same as 3, up to local sysadmin
6 - reboot
This is probably too radical a change for hamm.
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: