On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:03:27PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: >On Monday 29 August 2005 02:42, Brendan O'Dea wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 04:09:46AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: >> Debian doesn't enforce a policy on the multi-user run-levels (2-5), this >> is the decision of the local administrator. > >I agree that not enforcing a policy on run-levels is fine, the admin should >always be able to change them as he see fits. > >but is there really any good reason to have the default run-level states >differ from the LSB defined init-level states [1]? > >[1] >http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/runlevels.html
Yes, a technical one. Given that the recommended way to call update-rc.d is currently using the argument "defaults", achiving the granularity described in to document above would require modifying all packages calling update-rc.d . If we were to go to that effort, I'd suggest enhancing update-rc.d such that in place of "defaults" a list of classes could be provided, something like: "multi,network,gui" which would map by default to 2-5, the mapping presumably defined in a config file. Not really sure that it's worth the effort. --bod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
