On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 04:15:54AM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As it stands (as I understand it), runlevels 2 through 5 are presently > > identical in Debian. There is an ugly kludge in Debian XFree86 right now, > > involving "start-xdm" and "start-xfs" which can make things behave > > counterintuitively, and I'd like to get rid of these things.
> I disagree here. I think it's best we stick with proven Unix > practices rather than inventing our own because we feel like it. > > 0 - halt > 1 - single user mode (emerg. maintenance) > 2 - multi-user, no network serving > 3 - full multiuser, network serving (where xdm, nfs, etc should start too) > 4 - same as 3, up to local sysadmin > 5 - same as 3, up to local sysadmin > 6 - reboot But hang on; Branden's whole point was that runlevels could solve the xdm & xfs mess in the /etc/X11/config file; your runlevel proposal doesn't address that at all. Is "it's traditional" a good enough reason to do things? Traditionally a Unix platform doesn't come with the GNU system installed, but we ship it that way. And more examples ... Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
