> On 04 Sep 2000, Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not quite. The FHS briefly mentions *System V's* runlevel 2 and > > 3 (along with Berkley's multiuser state). It does not specify > > anything about runlevels for Linux or any other OS.
Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied: > O.k., you're right - it was on linuxbase.org. Which we support, > according to their main-page. ... So, I'm asking, why we don't follow > this guidelines? Hmm ... Have you actually read the "Linux Standard Base Specification"? There's not much there; they have hardly fleshed out any of the specification. Personally, I hope that the impact of the whole LSB project on Debian will be a few minor changes and that most of the facilities required to be LSB compatible can be supplied by a single "lsb" Debian package. That is a long way down the road, however. > I don't see any contradiction with our current approach to leave it up > to the user. That won't interfere IMHO, for the update-rc script (or > what ever it's called) doesn't touch the links if any of them exists, > right? So the user can still change 'em to her/his likes. Go ahead and make a proposal that we adopt a particular runlevel scheme. Then the developers can vote on it. It is true that the update-rc script will still allow the system administrator to customize the links to his or her own needs. > Now, are we part of the linuxbase-project or aren't we? I know that > it's not good to take everything without asking it - but the current > setup is somewhat nonsense to me - 4 runlevels with the same setup.... Not really. Some of our members are providing input into the project, but the LSB project doesn't have enough of a standard yet to adhere to, even if we wanted to adhere to it. - Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
