Re: Anyone working on the rc.d installer problem?

["Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>]

   From: Rahul Dave <rahul@reno.cis.upenn.edu>
   Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:48:40 -0500 (EST)

   I've tried to organize what needs to be done at
   http://reno.cis.upenn.edu/~rahul/standards

   and at
   http://reno.cis.upenn.edu/~rahul/standards/packrdf (for package management)

Yes, but this is at a very high level.  I'm interested in specifying
something which can be useful for providing interoperability between
distributions when installing rc.d files right away, even if we don't
get a high-level package metadata format agreed upon until later.

If this is what you're currently doing, would I be right in assuming
that there isn't something at this low level of design work?  I think it
would be useful to provide this level of functionality right away, and
it should be easy to have the higher-level package management format
call /usr/sbin/rcinstall if needed.  

But let's get something out the door which adds value right away; we can
always build upon it later.

   Yes, this is nice. One comment, for distributions that dont use runlevels,
   a number should not be mandatory. Instead use words--multi-user mode,
   single-user mode, etc. Its up to the compliant distribution.

Good point.  We also want something which is generic because different
distributions may have different definitions of what these terms may
mean.

Here's the runlevels which RedHat uses; can someone tell me what the
runlevels defined by Debian?

# Default runlevel. The runlevels used by RHS are:
#   0 - halt (Do NOT set initdefault to this)
#   1 - Single user mode
#   2 - Multiuser, without NFS (The same as 3, if you do not have networking)
#   3 - Full multiuser mode
#   4 - unused
#   5 - X11
#   6 - reboot (Do NOT set initdefault to this)


							- Ted