According to Yann Dirson:
> That just go fine, until you try to use 'halt' or 'reboot': as
> specified in the manpage (yes :), these only call shutdown when in
> runlevel 1-5. Quite strange IMHO. *BE CAREFUL* trying to reproduce it,
> it (probably among other unclean things) doesn't unmount cleanly
Yann Dirson writes:
> * that's not complete either. As already mentionned, the manpage tells
> about undocumented runlevels 7-9. It also poorly tells about those
> AaBbCc I never really understood.
I just tried those runlevels 7-9, with sysvinit_2.71-2. It just need
few modifications to have th
Alexander Koch writes:
> ~ # init
> Usage: init 0123456SsQqAaBbCc
>
> 1 is already multiuser, no networking (iirc).
> single-user is S or s (just like using the single as argument for lilo)!
> 2 is networking (basic, inn comes up etc)
> 3 is full networking (whatever you desire)
> 4 and 5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Jellinghaus) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> On May 26, Kai Henningsen wrote
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Vygonets) wrote on 26.05.97 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6)
> > > seems t
On May 26, Tom Lees wrote
>
> No, we don't need xdm in runlevel 4. A better solution would be this (but
> it is more difficult, requires multiple inetd.conf files):-
>
> 2: multiuser, minimal networking, no networking daemons (including inetd).
> 3: multiuser, "client" networking (rpc.ugidd, iden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Vygonets) wrote on 26.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6)
> seems to be the standard in Linux boxen now, but why?
It's been standard in runlevel-based Unix for a long time. That's probably
because tradi
>BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6)
>seems to be the standard in Linux boxen now, but why?
AFAIK, it is 6 for reboot since that is what most othe SysV-ish Unixen
use (like Irix and Solaris)
--
Richard W Kaszeta Graduate Student/Sysadmin
[
On Mon, 26 May 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 6: reboot
> 7-9: do whatever the heck you want with.
BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6)
seems to be the standard in Linux boxen now, but why?
Vadik.
--
Vadim Vygonets * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Uni
On Mon, 26 May 1997, Tom Lees wrote:
> > I'd like something similar to:
> > 1: single user
> > 2: multiuser with minimal networking, probably without offering services
> > 3: full networking (NFS, xfs, anonymous ftp, ...)
> > 4: xdm? (yes, it is common on Slackware and RedHat to start xdm
> >ac
On 23 May 1997, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> I know nothing about runlevel standards, just my opinions:
Same here.
> > "AK" == Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> AK: level 1 is without net, 2 is with it all (imo including nfs
> AK: and the like) and 3 is xdm, 6 was shutdown or
Actually Debian could potentially use all the standard levels 0-6 for
itself, and we could define the not so standard levels 7-9 to be totally
for users purposes. That would give us much more space. We could then
even take one of the 0-6 and reserve it for future use by Debian. And
users would h
I know nothing about runlevel standards, just my opinions:
> "AK" == Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AK: level 1 is without net, 2 is with it all (imo including nfs
AK: and the like) and 3 is xdm, 6 was shutdown or halt or
AK: whatsoever. at least that i remember from
12 matches
Mail list logo
