On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:45:47AM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > 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. It doesn't have to gain anything. You're the one who wants to make a change; you have to show that it gains enough to be worth the work of doing it, which is considerable. > On the other hand it does make sure that a lot of non-distro specific > documentation matches the default situation on Debian also. A lot of Debian documentation matches the default situation on Debian at present. You are asking to break that. You'd better have a good reason. So far you're arguing that Debian should change to match Redhat documentation instead of Debian documentation, because this would be less confusing for users. That's crazy. > > Debian is not an LSB system. > > true at the moment, LSB-compliance for the init scripts is on the TODO list > for etch though No it isn't. > and having Debian being LSB-compliance would be a boon for > getting corporate support for Debian Not going to happen. We use Debian packages and not LSB ones. Besides, that's nonsense. Nobody does corporate support for LSB. They just ship RPMs. There's nobody with any real interest in marketing the LSB to the vendors and no vendors with any real interest in using it. Both SuSE and Redhat tell vendors to produce packages for SuSE and Redhat, not the LSB. The stickers on the box say "Compatible with Redhat" and "Compatible with SuSE". That is what they want to happen. Why would the vendors also produce LSB packages after doing that? The ultimate proof is in the marketplace: the total lack of LSB applications. > (e.g. it's an explicite goal for the > DCC) Which is one of the reasons why they're a(nother) fork. > > 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? Existing practice. Massive installed base of users who are used to our system. Current software and documentation that would have to be changed. The spec was written to permit Debian and its derivatives; why did you think this clause was added? > > 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? Quite. That is what I asked you. > > The LSB ones are highly subjective > > what default setup isn't? Ours. > 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, No evidence, probably wrong. Debian users don't mess around with runlevels, they uninstall xdm. > > and serve only to validate redhat. > It's been a while but if I remember correctly both mandrake Redhat fork. Obviously all the Redhat forks inherited the Redhat numbering. > and suse used > that same run-level definition, SuSE 7.1 changed to the Redhat system for the LSB, and they were pretty pissed off about it. Historically they used a different variation, where xdm ran in runlevel 3. > it's definately not only redhat in any case It is. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature