Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In bashing my head against X for a while I've come to the realization that > perhaps it's time we come up with some official policy regarding runlevels.
Yes... Solaris has it, so should we. ;) > As it stands (as I understand it), runlevels 2 through 5 are presently > identical in Debian. There is an ugly kludge in Debian XFree86 right now, > involving "start-xdm" and "start-xfs" which can make things behave > counterintuitively, and I'd like to get rid of these things. > I'd like to kick xdm and xfs over to runlevels 4 and 5 (as RH and > Slackware do, from what I gather on #debian). It doesn't matter to > me what we define runlevel 3 as. We might as well leave it the same > as 2 for now. I disagree here. I think it's best we stick with proven Unix practices rather than inventing our own because we feel like it. 0 - halt 1 - single user mode (emerg. maintenance) 2 - multi-user, no network serving 3 - full multiuser, network serving (where xdm, nfs, etc should start too) 4 - same as 3, up to local sysadmin 5 - same as 3, up to local sysadmin 6 - reboot This is probably too radical a change for hamm. .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
