On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:45:47AM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 18:26, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:03:27PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
> wrote:
> > > but is there really any good reason to have the default run-level
> > >
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 05:02:10PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Friday 02 September 2005 14:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> > * We won't be able to change them on already running systems
> > automatically: there are so many initscripts that it's very likely at
> > least one
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 th
On Friday 02 September 2005 14:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:45:47AM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 September 2005 18:26, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:03:27PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
> > Given that changin
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:45:47AM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 18:26, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:03:27PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
> wrote:
> > > but is there really any good reason to have the default run-level
> > >
On Friday 02 September 2005 03:21, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> 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 .
t
On Thursday 01 September 2005 18:26, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:03:27PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
> > but is there really any good reason to have the default run-level
> > states differ from the LSB defined init-level states [1]?
>
> Is there any good reason
7 matches
Mail list logo