I'd counterpropose to make this optional. I very much like the
fact that the runlevels have no default meaning and would prefer
it to stay that way, although I can see the issue of LSB
compliance.
Personally, I hate that it isn't a standardized way to get down to
a minimal system, or a
Fredderic writes:
But at the end of the day, a very basic runlevel 1, a fairly complete
runlevel 5, and a means to easily configure the runlevels without losing
any (a problem with some of the older runlevel editors I've used),
especially losing information about what priority the service is
[Henning Makholm]
Perhaps I'm just missing some specific technical definition of
multiuser, but what you describe sounds like single user,
multitasking.
This is old Unix jargon. Multiuser mode is where regular logins and
shells are supported - specifically you've got gettys running to let
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:52:38AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Timo Aaltonen writes:
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in Debian?
I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
Please check the
Scripsit Timo Aaltonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2 multi-user, no network services exported, no NFS
-more secure service-wise than 3
-RH has network here, although they claim that 2 is not used
Given that it is very rare for machines these days to have banks of
local ttys attached, is a
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-15 13:17:02]:
Scripsit Timo Aaltonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2 multi-user, no network services exported, no NFS
-more secure service-wise than 3
-RH has network here, although they claim that 2 is not used
Given that it is very rare for
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:16:30PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
My workstation has two heads, with independent Xservers, one for
me and one for my wife. The number of heads is limited by the
number of PCI/AGP video cards you can use. The linuxconsole
project works on a kernel patch that
[Steinar H. Gunderson]
How do you make this work? Last time I tried it, X would only show
the one connected to the ???active??? virtual console, and blanked
the other.
It need some patches to the kernel and X. I'm not sure how many of
these are included in the mainstream kernel and X
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Timo Aaltonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2 multi-user, no network services exported, no NFS
-more secure service-wise than 3
-RH has network here, although they claim that 2 is not used
Given that it is very rare for machines these days to
Scripsit Timo Aaltonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
Given that it is very rare for machines these days to have banks of
local ttys attached, is a multi-user without network runlevel really
relevant for even a significant minory of our users? How would those
Henning Makholm wrote:
Given that it is very rare for machines these days to have banks of local
ttys attached, is a multi-user without network runlevel really relevant
for even a significant minory of our users? How would those multiple
users interact with the machine?
Timo Aaltonen writes:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Steinar H. Gunderson]
How do you make this work? Last time I tried it, X would only show
the one connected to the ???active??? virtual console, and blanked
the other.
It need some patches to the kernel and X. I'm not
Scripsit John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bringing the machine up without networking can be useful for problem
solving. I prefer to use multiple consoles when doing so. This requires
multiuser.
Perhaps I'm just missing some specific technical definition of
multiuser, but what you describe
[Daniel Stone]
Ubuntu implements this from the installer down (although only for
the special cases of four nVidia, MGA, or ATI cards, and even then
you may need to fiddle with the configuration a little bit), with a
bunch of patches to xorg -- no kernel patches required. Those
patches are
On Monday 15 August 2005 07:45 am, John Hasler wrote:
Bringing the machine up without networking can be useful for problem
solving. I prefer to use multiple consoles when doing so. This requires
multiuser.
You can also use openvt(1) in single-user mode.
Daniel
--
/---
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 06:19:08PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Daniel Stone]
Ubuntu implements this from the installer down (although only for
the special cases of four nVidia, MGA, or ATI cards, and even then
you may need to fiddle with the configuration a little bit), with a
* Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-16 01:09:53]:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Steinar H. Gunderson]
How do you make this work? Last time I tried it, X would only show
the one connected to the ???active??? virtual console, and blanked
the
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:50:41PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
wasnt it me who included the interesting patches into the
*debian* kernel a year ago?
Depends if you want multiseat X or multiseat VTs, but hearty
congratulations in any case. Well done.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, John Hasler wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
If the local admin needs multiple multi-user runlevels, he can always set
it up himself (and use a initscript system that supports it without
hassle ;-) ),
Could you suggest one?
file-rc or sysv-rc :-) Both
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 03:52:50PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Yes, all mounts from fstab, including NFS mounts, are done in
single user mode. But you should only put essential,static mounts in
/etc/fstab (say, /usr or so). For the rest you should use automount.
The NFS volumes
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:25:51PM +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:05:43PM +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
Single-user mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
-network
-all
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You get that behaviour if you boot emergency mode instead of single
user. (You can't switch to it from multi-user mode though.)
In my experience emergency mode tends to be more useful than single user.
Same, here. Debian rc.S does too much IMHO.
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You get that behaviour if you boot emergency mode instead of single
user.
If by emergency mode you mean init=/bin/sh, then doing:
exec /sbin/init
will continue the boot, I'm pretty sure.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 05:04:19PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You get that behaviour if you boot emergency mode instead of single
user.
If by emergency mode you mean init=/bin/sh, then doing:
exec /sbin/init
will continue the boot, I'm pretty sure.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
If by emergency mode you mean init=/bin/sh, then doing:
exec /sbin/init
will continue the boot, I'm pretty sure.
Emergency mode is specifying -b or emergency at the kernel boot prompt.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does there exist a list of all the packages that install scripts in
/etc/init.d?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Aug 14, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does there exist a list of all the packages that install scripts in
/etc/init.d?
Yes, it's called Contents-$ARCH.gz...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sunday 14 August 2005 02:55, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 14, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does there exist a list of all the packages that install scripts in
/etc/init.d?
Yes, it's called Contents-$ARCH.gz...
You mean:
I wrote:
Does there exist a list of all the packages that install scripts in
/etc/init.d?
Marco writes:
Yes, it's called Contents-$ARCH.gz...
Thanks. That gives me some of what I need.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Frans Pop writes:
You mean:
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=%2Fetc%2Finit.dsearchmode=searchfilesanddirscase=insensitiveversion=unstablearch=i386
?
That's more useful: it gets me quickly to the short descriptions.
(I thought that the Debian site search was still
Hi!
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in
Debian? I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/runlevels.html
The reason for this is that practically Debian has only two
[Timo Aaltonen]
Single-user mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
-network
-all disks (including NFS) mounted
..and those that depend on them.
Yes, singleuser in debian is not working very
Quoting Timo Aaltonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in
Debian? I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
IIRC, there were discussions about that issue. I don't remember
the outcome and would like to see Debian more LSBish here.
Hi,
Timo Aaltonen wrote:
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in
Debian? I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
I'd counterpropose to make this optional. I very much like the fact that
the runlevels have no default meaning and would prefer it to stay
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in
Debian? I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
Well, for what is it worth, I am against part of what you describe.
We can shuffle what happens in system init (rc.S),
[Simon Richter]
I'd counterpropose to make this optional. I very much like the fact
that the runlevels have no default meaning and would prefer it to
stay that way, although I can see the issue of LSB compliance.
Care to share with us on why you like the current setup?
Personally, I hate that
Timo Aaltonen writes:
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in Debian?
I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
Please check the archives. This has been discussed many times. It is
clear that there is going to be no change.
I've been considering adding a
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
If the local admin needs multiple multi-user runlevels, he can always set
it up himself (and use a initscript system that supports it without
hassle ;-) ),
Could you suggest one?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:05:43PM +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
Single-user mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
-network
-all disks (including NFS) mounted
Well, I have no strong feelings
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:23:04PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Personally, I hate that it isn't a standardized way to get down to a
minimal system, or a standardized way to start everything bug *dm/X.
I do not think that X should be anything special. Yes, there is the case
when you have
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:52:38AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Timo Aaltonen writes:
Is there will to change the current policy regarding runlevels in Debian?
I'd propose to use the recommendation made by LSB:
Please check the archives. This has been discussed many times. It is
clear that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
GOMBAS Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:05:43PM +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
Single-user mode is a fiasco, because in /etc/rcS.d/* there are a number
of services that really should not belong there. Examples:
-network
-all
[Miquel van Smoorenburg]
If you don't want NFS mounts in single user mode, don't put them in
/etc/fstab ...
Your simple solution do not match all installation. For those
installation with NFS mounts in fstab and no automount setting, it
would be useful with a singleuser mode without mounting
I wrote:
Please check the archives. This has been discussed many times. It is
clear that there is going to be no change.
Javier writes:
The last sentence is not true. For some of the compelling reasons as to
why this should change...
I didn't say it shouldn't change.
--
John Hasler
--
44 matches
Mail list logo
