[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PROPOSAL: standard run levels (draft 1)



On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 03:05:48AM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Proposal for standard run levels, going after requirement #6 ("define
> standard run level mappings") in draft 2 of the init file requirements.

The way most Debian packages deal with this is to say "update-rc.d
defaults" which will add the init script to the `default' runlevels;
rather than specifying exactly which ones should be used. For Debian
these are 2, 3, 4 and 5; for RedHat they could be 3, 4, 5; for others
they could be different again.

If we're going to say "this script depends on networking" rather than
"this should start at level 30", why don't we treat the numbers here as
inconsequential, too?

Benefits include that this allows users to use an init system that doesn't
do runlevels and are able to add new runlevels that third party products
get automatically added to.

I'd nevertheless be inclined to see the LSB list some `common' runlevel
assignments, but I'd rather not have them set in stone, or relied upon
by third-parties. YMMV.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: pgpqwCRjOJh76.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: