Re: PROPOSAL: defining a new runlevel, 4
"Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 04:15:54AM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> 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?
It's a good reason but not a sufficient reason to do things. In cases
were it makes sense.
> Traditionally a Unix platform doesn't
> come with the GNU system installed, but we ship it that way. And
> more examples ...
I'm not adverse to having xdm/xfs et al start in run level 4, that is
fine. In that case, we're extending tradition a little.
One point I wanted people to recognize is that if we diverge the
meaning of run levels 2 and 3 from the solaris practice, which
expresses a pretty standard practice AFAIK, we are going to be making
headaches for new sysadmins and for software developers writing for
Unix.
.....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: