William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:03:57 -0600 as excerpted:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:53:59PM +, Duncan wrote:
>> William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:23:07 -0600 as excerpted:
>>
>>> There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you
>>> should be changing
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:53:59PM +, Duncan wrote:
> William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:23:07 -0600 as excerpted:
>
> > There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should
> > be changing runlevels.
>
> ???
>
> init 9 (or telinit 9, yes, I have a runlevel 9, b
William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:23:07 -0600 as excerpted:
> There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should
> be changing runlevels.
???
init 9 (or telinit 9, yes, I have a runlevel 9, basic, just gpm as it
happens) isn't appropriate?
Of course, with gento
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/12/2013 05:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I think one thing that would be nice to dream about someday would be a
>> systemd-compatibility init.d script.
[...]
> I don't think this can be done in a way that adds value to users.
The converse is simpler and for certa
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:28:09PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Markos Chandras posted on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:53:04 + as excerpted:
>
> > On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> >> On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that
Markos Chandras posted on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:53:04 + as excerpted:
> On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
>> On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be
>>> unique.
>>>
>>> I know at least one thing that will br
