On Thursday 01 September 2005 18:26, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:03:27PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
> > but is there really any good reason to have the default run-level
> > states differ from the LSB defined init-level states [1]?
>
> Is there any good reason for changing them from their current one?
> "Because the LSB says so" is not a reasonable answer;
we're talking about a _default_, not about declaring that users can't set up
each runlevel how they like.
Given that changing the default does not keep our users from setting up
runlevels exactly how they like. I don't see how differing from the LSB
gains anything.
On the other hand it does make sure that a lot of non-distro specific
documentation matches the default situation on Debian also.
-> I can see a dubious[1] advantage to our developers as it means less work
-> I _don't_ see any advantage to our users for sticking with the current
default while I do see a clear disadvantage as mentioned above
[1] dubious as there's people that would be willing to do the work when it's
clear it's not going to be ignored
> Debian is not an LSB system.
true at the moment, LSB-compliance for the init scripts is on the TODO list
for etch though, and having Debian being LSB-compliance would be a boon for
getting corporate support for Debian (e.g. it's an explicite goal for the
DCC)
> We use Debian packages and not LSB ones, for starters. And
> the spec clearly says that these numbers are just for arguments to the
> install_initd LSB command, not application use. Our install_initd,
> assuming the LSB compatibility stuff has one, can simply remap them.
The spec contains the following:
Note: These run levels were chosen as reflecting the most frequent
existing practice, and in the absence of other considerations,
implementors are strongly encouraged to follow this convention to provide
consistency for system administrators who need to work with multiple
distributions.
Exactly what are our other considerations?
> Our defaults are certainly easier to understand and remember. They
> have clearly defined, non-vague meanings.
yeah, all run levels is the same _is_ easier to remember then this runlevel
does that and that runlevel does this
It's not a very usefull default though, if they all do the same thing anyway
way bother making the distinction?
> The LSB ones are highly subjective
what default setup isn't?
Consider though that right now in Debian any kind of usefull runlevel will
require changing the default,
wether the default LSB setup is usefull is debatable but a lot of people
seem to think it's at least occasionally usefull, so I'd say it at least
offers a better change at providing something usefull without diverting
from the default.
> and serve only to validate redhat.
It's been a while but if I remember correctly both mandrake and suse used
that same run-level definition, it's definately not only redhat in any case
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpWTBA1zyngo.pgp
Description: PGP signature