Re: [users] Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Sherohman <esper@genma.sherohman.org> writes:
Dave> You may have 4 identical runlevels and I may have 4 identical
Dave> runlevels, but debian's policy leaves it up to the admin to
Dave> decide what each runlevel means. If LSB makes proclamations on
Dave> the meaning of various runlevels, then the admin has to adhere
Dave> to those meanings or risk losing compatibility with LSB
Dave> packages.
Ok, you don't define runlevels, admin with nonstandard runlevel scheme
(runlevels meaning different things) has to move scripts around after
software installs. You do, and guess what? an admin with nonstandard
runlevels has to move scripts around, and manually manage her
runlevels. If she doesn't use the LSB ones, she won't be able to
install LSB packages without manually handling the boot scripts.
'course, if the LSB says nothing about where they go, she has to
manually fiddle the boot scripts.
Dave> (Much the same situation as with people who respond to questions
Dave> about 'how do I get rid of this GUI login screen?' by saying
Dave> 'change to runlevel 2' - they're making assumptions about what
Dave> each runlevel means. Even on a RH system, it's not guaranteed
Dave> that rl5 = X and rl2 = not X. The admin might have shuffled
Dave> symlinks because he wanted it the other way around.)
And someone not the sysadmin (who knows what he did) is changing the
runlevel why? And how?
I don't see the problem with distributions/the lsb defining run
levels. It does simplify things somewhat for people who don't wanna
muck with them, and leaves anyone who wants to do anything "fancy"
manually fiddling with their boot scripts.
-Eric
Reply to: