On Feb 19, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 06:50:01PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > - LSB 1.1 specifies definitions for run levels 2-5 that correspond > > with most Red Hat-like distributions. Debian does not specify run > > levels 3-5, and RL 2 can theoretically encompass any of LSB 2-5. > > > > (LSB probably should implement init dependencies for facilities > > expected in run levels, rather than using run levels directly.) > > This was discussed on one of the LSB lists (-spec? -discuss? both?) back > when the 1.0 spec came out; the conclusion was basically that Debian > should just translate those runlevels into the Debian equivalents. That > is, just because a script specifies runlevel 5 but not 2, doesn't mean > it shouldn't be brought up in runlevel 3 on Debian if that's what's > appropriate.
OK, some sort of remapping probably should be done then. Now it makes a little more sense. (This probably should actually be *explained* in the spec.) > > [...] however, my gut feeling is > > that any LSB RL from 2-5 should be treated as 2-5 inclusive on > > Debian until Debian conforms (unlikely for woody) or LSB is amended > > to get rid of this silliness. > > There are also systems out there that don't use runlevels, or that have > user defined runlevels that aren't remotely related to the numbers Red > Hat uses, which the LSB ought to support. > > > There may be other deviations from the spec; they are bugs and should > > be reported as such. (The aforementioned deviations are bugs, but > > probably "wontfix" for woody, or are bugs in the spec.) > > You should also mention that the uid for "bin" isn't 1 as the LSB > specifies. Strange. I thought Ted they were going to drop the numeric uid requirement except for root. :scratches head: Well, not something I or anyone else can fix at this point. Consider it a bug in the spec :-) And it will get documented... BTW, I found the thread: http://lists.debian.org/lsb-spec/2001/lsb-spec-200107/msg00002.html I'll probably add it to the README too. Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/