Re: PROPOSAL: defining a new runlevel, 4
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 04:15:54AM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Branden Robinson <branden@purdue.edu> writes:
> > 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 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
But hang on; Branden's whole point was that runlevels could solve the
xdm & xfs mess in the /etc/X11/config file; your runlevel proposal
doesn't address that at all. Is "it's traditional" a good enough reason
to do things? Traditionally a Unix platform doesn't come with the GNU
system installed, but we ship it that way. And more examples ...
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: