Re: /etc/init.d structure [long rant]
In message <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.970815150604.20141A-100000@minkirri.apana.org.au> you
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Dima wrote:
>
>> Also, runlevels _are flexible. Nobody can force me to start networking
>> daemons at RL 2 -- I can bloody well start them from ip-up when I ring my
>> ISP, at whatever runlevel I happen to be then. (In practice I don't care:
>> when I don't need networking daemons, they waste about $0.5 worth of my
>> swap partition. Big deal).
>>
>This is a different thing all together. What you are doing is saying that
>runlevels are not flexible enough to handle your networking daemon
>requirements, so you'r gonna do it manualy. You are just saying that they
>are flexible because you don't have to use them.
What I meant was, let's say on my box I have runlevels 0 - 2 for powerdown
(you're quite right about that not belonging in rl 5, btw), halt and reboot,
rl 3 = single-user, 4 = multi-user and 5 = multi-user with xdm running.
I'm not concerned with, e.g. networking daemons.
A person configuring web/mail/newsserver would be concerned with the
order in which daemons are started, and s/he would edit rls 4 - 6
accordingly. S/he doesn't care about xdm.
On, say, a router programs running at rls 4 - 6 will be different again.
What remains is the order in which various programs are started/killed;
I think that can easily fit into a stack-like thingy (or a state machine,
for that matter).
We don't know which exactly "various programs" they'll happen to be on a
given machine; we can, however, provide a reasonable, easy to modify
default.
Anyway, I'd prefer any (open would be nice) standard, as long as it's
supported by at least 3 - 4 different unices. As long as it's not
a single program group called "startup"... :)
--
Dimitri
-------
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meet
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it
is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation.
(Solicited advertisements <huh?> and other such can be sent to
emaziuk at curtin dot edu dot au)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: