Henning Makholm wrote on 05/03/2005 12:17:
Scripsit Benjamin Mesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just wondering if Debian should switch to LSB recommendation
LSB recommends:
0 halt
1 single user mode
2 multiuser with no network services exported
3 normal/full multiu
Scripsit Benjamin Mesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just wondering if Debian should switch to LSB recommendation
> LSB recommends:
> 0 halt
> 1 single user mode
> 2 multiuser with no network services exported
> 3 normal/full multiuser
> 4 reserved for local use,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Can we assume your systems are all Linux-based Debian?
Frankly I dont care about others, yes. I mean it is OK to use portable
interfaces where present, I just dont think this works in all cases.
In that specific case of course runlevel is already a gen
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:31:06PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:14AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > > If so... then it's flat-out not available on the set of systems in
> > > question
>
> > Hm? it is on all my systems:
> see
> http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=specrev&url=http://www.linuxbase.org/spec//booksets/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/set1.html
> for what the LSB has to say about the subject
So its seems SuSE was following LSB recommendations.
Just wondering if Debian should switch to LSB reco
On Friday 04 March 2005 10:22, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > Thats not true. Read the Debian Policy. Its just that some other
> > distributions use runlevel 2 for console mode. In Debian thats all up
> > to the user/administrator of the system. Of course we can change this
> > but its not true curren
> Thats not true. Read the Debian Policy. Its just that some other
> distributions use runlevel 2 for console mode. In Debian thats all up to
> the user/administrator of the system. Of course we can change this but
> its not true currently.
Sorry, consider me spoiled by SuSE which I am forced to
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:04:21AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
>
> > Well, my point was to have a common predefined way of doing it: once you
> > install kdm (or someone else), or move to xdm or whatever, you still can
> > disable the start of X by putting nox in the command line, instead of hav
> Well, my point was to have a common predefined way of doing it: once you
> install kdm (or someone else), or move to xdm or whatever, you still can
> disable the start of X by putting nox in the command line, instead of having
> to erase the links in rc2.d.
Acutally there should be no link in ru
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:14AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > If so... then it's flat-out not available on the set of systems in
> > question
> Hm? it is on all my systems:
> # cat /proc/cmdline
> auto BOOT_IMAGE=v2.6.8.1 ro root=811
Can we ass
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> If so... then it's flat-out not available on the set of systems in
> question
Hm? it is on all my systems:
# cat /proc/cmdline
auto BOOT_IMAGE=v2.6.8.1 ro root=811
Greetings
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:14:06PM -0800, Robert Carboneau wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> >It also looks like /proc/self/cmdline is more universal, if anyone did
> >need to do something of the sort.
>
> But that's just the process's command line, isn't it? I thought they
> were looking for the ker
Joel Aelwyn wrote:
It also looks like /proc/self/cmdline is more universal, if anyone did
need to do something of the sort.
But that's just the process's command line, isn't it? I thought they
were looking for the kernel command line.
-- Rob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 11:36:46PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
> and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with con
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:09:00AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode
>
> what about runlevel 2? :)
Well, my point was to have a common predefined way of doing it: once you
install kdm (or so
On 02-Mar-05, 07:55 (CST), Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be nice for occasional no-X booting, e.g. for debugging. But
> then there's still single user mode for that, so "wasting" a whole
> runlevel for it doesn't seem so useful. The "nox" boot parameter seems
> much less int
Scripsit Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
> Easy enough for me in my system. It would be nice to have a standard way
> of telling the system to not start X on any Debian system while keeping
> X start up being the default without the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2 Mar 2005, at 2:58 pm, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
[No need to CC me, I'm on the list]
Em Qua, 2005-03-02 às 07:06 +0100, Michael Koch escreveu:
I like the idea. I sometimes miss an easy way to say "don't start X",
too, although most times I do w
[No need to CC me, I'm on the list]
Em Qua, 2005-03-02 Ãs 07:06 +0100, Michael Koch escreveu:
> > I like the idea. I sometimes miss an easy way to say "don't start X",
> > too, although most times I do want it to run.
>
> is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
Easy enough for me in
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:45:26PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Michael Koch in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
>
> Please don't recommend rm'ing the S* links. Rename them to K* instead
> or else they will be recreated on the next upgrade.
Read th
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:53:30 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Christoph Berg
>
> | Re: Michael Koch in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
> |
> | Please don't recommend rm'ing the S* links. Rename them to K* instead
> | or else they w
Re: Sean Perry in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> >kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from
> >/proc/cmdline
> >and grep for nox?
Would be neat :)
> Should be easy for you to do locally and since the init
* Christoph Berg
| Re: Michael Koch in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
|
| Please don't recommend rm'ing the S* links. Rename them to K* instead
| or else they will be recreated on the next upgrade.
Removing just a single link is fine. They will only
Re: Michael Koch in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
Please don't recommend rm'ing the S* links. Rename them to K* instead
or else they will be recreated on the next upgrade.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Descriptio
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:36:46 +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from
> /proc/cmdline and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:06:41PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Ter, 2005-03-01 às 23:36 +0100, Jesus Climent escreveu:
> > What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> > kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from
> > /proc/cmdline
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode
what about runlevel 2? :)
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Em Ter, 2005-03-01 Ãs 23:36 +0100, Jesus Climent escreveu:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
> and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console
Jesus Climent wrote:
What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
and grep for nox?
I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode, and it would
be nice to just add an append
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 11:36:46PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
> and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with con
What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
and grep for nox?
I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode, and it would
be nice to just add an append to the kernel comma
31 matches
Mail list logo
