On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:09:55 +0100, Simon wrote in message <5f3ba84f-752c-4bee-b0c6-8e31b10f3...@thehobsons.co.uk>:
> Arnt Karlsen <a...@iaksess.no> wrote: > > > ..well, that's still 256 possible runlevel names. ;o) > > TBH, I don't think there's all that much scope for **usefully** using > lots of runlevels. > > To start with, (near enough) every package comes with a control > script for rc to use - and which contains comments to signal to the > management scripts what runlevels the daemon in intended to run in. > So you'd have to edit all of those so that update-rc can do it's job > easily. ..before we get that far, we still have those 3 vacant runlevels most people never use, which _are_ supported by update-rc. :o) > And of course, once you do that then you get into all the > problems that come with editing package supplied files- having to > choose between your own or the (possibly updated) package supplied > one, and re-applying changes if you choose to use the updated package > supplied file. > > And then there is the issue that if you want different combinations > of daemons running, then you need to list all those that need to run > in each combination. Unless you only need a small number of > combinations (in which case the spare ones of 3,4,5 are likely to > suffice) ..aye, e.g. 3 for "on work wifi", 4 for "on phone wifi" and 5 for "record drone FPV video" would work for people like me. > then it's likely to turn into quite a PITA. ..aye, I was thinking "systemd isolate" style idiot stunt things, not combinations of those, which would be an awesomely bad idea. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
