On Monday 05 September 2005 17:04, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 04:28:03PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
> > (actually the distinction between 'multi-user without network' and
> > 'multi-user with network' is more interesting to me: booting a laptop
> > without netwerk eas
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 04:28:03PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Friday 02 September 2005 19:35, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Yes, it works while the RH/MDK/SuSE implementation does not.
> > On Debian at least you do not need to mess with /etc/inittab each time
> > you install/remove a
On Friday 02 September 2005 19:35, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Yes, it works while the RH/MDK/SuSE implementation does not.
> On Debian at least you do not need to mess with /etc/inittab each time
> you install/remove a display manager.
>
> How do you plan to fix that while keeping the admin free to ch
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
- It shouldn't be to hard to convert a system over to LSB-runlevels if
the
runlevels and initscripts haven't been changed.
For years I couldn't see the point in different run-levels, for exactly
the reasons others have given on this thread - it's easier t
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
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 lo
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 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, t
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 06:33:14AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> B> Debian doesn't enforce a policy on the multi-user run-levels (2-5), this
> B> is the decision of the local administrator.
>
> OK, it wouldn't hurt to mention that fact then in the policy document,
> just to make things clear. Or ma
B> Debian doesn't enforce a policy on the multi-user run-levels (2-5), this
B> is the decision of the local administrator.
OK, it wouldn't hurt to mention that fact then in the policy document,
just to make things clear. Or maybe it would hurt. I don't know.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 04:09:46AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
>One wants to know the exact definition of each of the Debian run levels.
You're confusing Debian Policy with a user/administrators manual. It's
not.
>Well right at the top of 9.3.1 I would say what each run level is,
>using one line
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.2.1
Severity: wishlist
One wants to know the exact definition of each of the Debian run levels.
We see
9.3. System run levels and `init.d' scripts
9.3.1. Introduction
The `/etc/init.d' directory contains the scripts executed by `init' at
boot time
18 matches
Mail list logo
