Fredderic writes:
> But at the end of the day, a very basic runlevel 1, a fairly complete
> runlevel 5, and a means to easily configure the runlevels without losing
> any (a problem with some of the older runlevel editors I've used),
> especially losing information about what priority the service i
> > I'd counterpropose to make this optional. I very much like the
> > fact that the runlevels have no default meaning and would prefer
> > it to stay that way, although I can see the issue of LSB
> > compliance.
> Personally, I hate that it isn't a standardized way to get down to
> a minimal syst
[Henning Makholm]
> Perhaps I'm just missing some specific technical definition of
> "multiuser", but what you describe sounds like "single user,
> multitasking".
This is old Unix jargon. Multiuser mode is where regular logins and
shells are supported - specifically you've got gettys running to
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:50:41PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> wasnt it me who included the interesting patches into the
> *debian* kernel a year ago?
Depends if you want multiseat X or multiseat VTs, but hearty
congratulations in any case. Well done.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
* Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-16 01:09:53]:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > [Steinar H. Gunderson]
> > > How do you make this work? Last time I tried it, X would only show
> > > the one connected to the ???active??? virtual console, and blan
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 06:19:08PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Daniel Stone]
> > Ubuntu implements this from the installer down (although only for
> > the special cases of four nVidia, MGA, or ATI cards, and even then
> > you may need to fiddle with the configuration a little bit), with a
On Monday 15 August 2005 07:45 am, John Hasler wrote:
> Bringing the machine up without networking can be useful for problem
> solving. I prefer to use multiple consoles when doing so. This requires
> multiuser.
You can also use openvt(1) in single-user mode.
Daniel
--
/--
[Daniel Stone]
> Ubuntu implements this from the installer down (although only for
> the special cases of four nVidia, MGA, or ATI cards, and even then
> you may need to fiddle with the configuration a little bit), with a
> bunch of patches to xorg -- no kernel patches required. Those
> patches ar
Scripsit John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bringing the machine up without networking can be useful for problem
> solving. I prefer to use multiple consoles when doing so. This requires
> multiuser.
Perhaps I'm just missing some specific technical definition of
"multiuser", but what you describ
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Steinar H. Gunderson]
> > How do you make this work? Last time I tried it, X would only show
> > the one connected to the ???active??? virtual console, and blanked
> > the other.
>
> It need some patches to the kernel and X.
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Given that it is very rare for machines these days to have banks of local
> ttys attached, is a "multi-user without network" runlevel really relevant
> for even a significant minory of our users? How would those multiple
> users interact with the machine?
Timo Aaltonen wri
Scripsit Timo Aaltonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Given that it is very rare for machines these days to have banks of
>> local ttys attached, is a "multi-user without network" runlevel really
>> relevant for even a significant minory of our users? How woul
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Timo Aaltonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2 multi-user, no network services exported, no NFS
-more secure service-wise than 3
-RH has network here, although they claim that 2 is not used
Given that it is very rare for machines these days to
[Steinar H. Gunderson]
> How do you make this work? Last time I tried it, X would only show
> the one connected to the ???active??? virtual console, and blanked
> the other.
It need some patches to the kernel and X. I'm not sure how many of
these are included in the mainstream kernel and X implem
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:16:30PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> My workstation has two heads, with independent Xservers, one for
> me and one for my wife. The number of heads is limited by the
> number of PCI/AGP video cards you can use. The linuxconsole
> project works on a kernel patch that m
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-15 13:17:02]:
> Scripsit Timo Aaltonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 2 multi-user, no network services exported, no NFS
> >
> > -more secure service-wise than 3
> > -RH has network here, although they claim that 2 is not used
>
> Given that it is very
Scripsit Timo Aaltonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2 multi-user, no network services exported, no NFS
>
> -more secure service-wise than 3
> -RH has network here, although they claim that 2 is not used
Given that it is very rare for machines these days to have banks of
local ttys attached, is a "mu
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:52:38AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Timo Aaltonen writes:
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in Debian?
I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
Please check the archives
Frans Pop writes:
> You mean:
> http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=%2Fetc%2Finit.d&searchmode=searchfilesanddirs&case=insensitive&version=unstable&arch=i386
> ?
That's more useful: it gets me quickly to the short descriptions.
(I thought that the Debian site search was sti
I wrote:
> Does there exist a list of all the packages that install scripts in
> /etc/init.d?
Marco writes:
> Yes, it's called Contents-$ARCH.gz...
Thanks. That gives me some of what I need.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
On Sunday 14 August 2005 02:55, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 14, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does there exist a list of all the packages that install scripts in
> > /etc/init.d?
>
> Yes, it's called Contents-$ARCH.gz...
You mean:
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl
On Aug 14, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does there exist a list of all the packages that install scripts in
> /etc/init.d?
Yes, it's called Contents-$ARCH.gz...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Does there exist a list of all the packages that install scripts in
/etc/init.d?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> If by "emergency mode" you mean init=/bin/sh, then doing:
>exec /sbin/init
> will continue the boot, I'm pretty sure.
Emergency mode is specifying -b or "emergency" at the kernel boot prompt.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 05:04:19PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > You get that behaviour if you boot "emergency" mode instead of single
> > user.
>
> If by "emergency mode" you mean init=/bin/sh, then doing:
> exec /sbin/init
> will continue the boot, I'm pr
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> You get that behaviour if you boot "emergency" mode instead of single
> user.
If by "emergency mode" you mean init=/bin/sh, then doing:
exec /sbin/init
will continue the boot, I'm pretty sure.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> You get that behaviour if you boot "emergency" mode instead of single
> user. (You can't switch to it from multi-user mode though.)
> In my experience emergency mode tends to be more useful than single user.
Same, here. Debian rc.S does too much IMHO.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:25:51PM +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:05:43PM +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>
> > "Single-user" mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
> > of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
> >
> > -network
> >
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 03:52:50PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Yes, all mounts from fstab, including NFS mounts, are done in
> single user mode. But you should only put essential,static mounts in
> /etc/fstab (say, /usr or so). For the rest you should use automount.
The NFS volumes sho
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, John Hasler wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> > If the local admin needs multiple multi-user runlevels, he can always set
> > it up himself (and use a initscript system that supports it without
> > hassle ;-) ),
>
> Could you suggest one?
file-rc or sysv-rc :-)
I wrote:
> Please check the archives. This has been discussed many times. It is
> clear that there is going to be no change.
Javier writes:
> The last sentence is not true. For some of the compelling reasons as to
> why this should change...
I didn't say it shouldn't change.
--
John Hasler
-
[Miquel van Smoorenburg]
> If you don't want NFS mounts in single user mode, don't put them in
> /etc/fstab ...
Your simple solution do not match all installation. For those
installation with NFS mounts in fstab and no automount setting, it
would be useful with a singleuser mode without mounting
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:05:43PM +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>
>> "Single-user" mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
>> of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
>>
>> -networ
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:52:38AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Timo Aaltonen writes:
> > Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in Debian?
> > I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
>
> Please check the archives. This has been discussed many times. It is
> cle
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:23:04PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Personally, I hate that it isn't a standardized way to get down to a
> minimal system, or a standardized way to start everything bug *dm/X.
I do not think that X should be anything special. Yes, there is the case
when you have
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:05:43PM +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> "Single-user" mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
> of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
>
> -network
> -all disks (including NFS) mounted
Well, I have no strong feelings
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> If the local admin needs multiple multi-user runlevels, he can always set
> it up himself (and use a initscript system that supports it without
> hassle ;-) ),
Could you suggest one?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Timo Aaltonen writes:
> Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in Debian?
> I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
Please check the archives. This has been discussed many times. It is
clear that there is going to be no change.
I've been considering adding a f
[Simon Richter]
> I'd counterpropose to make this optional. I very much like the fact
> that the runlevels have no default meaning and would prefer it to
> stay that way, although I can see the issue of LSB compliance.
Care to share with us on why you like the current setup?
Personally, I hate th
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in
> Debian? I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
Well, for what is it worth, I am against part of what you describe.
We can shuffle what happens in system init (rc.S), sing
Hi,
Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in
> Debian? I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
I'd counterpropose to make this optional. I very much like the fact that
the runlevels have no default meaning and would prefer it to stay t
Quoting Timo Aaltonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in
> Debian? I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
IIRC, there were discussions about that issue. I don't remember
the outcome and would like to see Debian more LSBish here.
[Timo Aaltonen]
> "Single-user" mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
> of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
>
> -network
> -all disks (including NFS) mounted
>
> ..and those that depend on them.
Yes, singleuser in debian is not working v
Hi!
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in
Debian? I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/runlevels.html
The reason for this is that practically Debian has only two
44 matches
Mail list logo
