On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> There was a discussion about this recently... So I thought I'd mention this:
> This is posted on cola; looks neat to me:
>
This is rediculous. Just don't install the sysv-init stuff
and run a bsd init + rc.local. By the by, BSD systems do a
very
[ ... ]
> If you want to see how its supposed to work, look at
> Solaris 2.x, Irix 6.x, etc.
>
> I've rewritten rc to do just that somewhere, but I wound up
> having to undo whatever debian does _every time I added a
> package_! It became too much work, so I bagged it.
>
> The premise is that a
>>"E.L. Meijer (Eric)" wrote:
>[ ... ]
>
...
>I always used to think it was me who didn't get it. I customized one
>runlevel to run without xdm. I used this runlevel to upgrade XFree86,
>so that if anything screwed up, I would not have xdm continously
>restarting a bogus X setup. This can
Please note, the current unstable distribution is planning on changing
the runlevel setup. To the best of my knowledge, the actual runlevel
setup has not been decided upon yet. Unstable will not be released as
stable for quite some time though, so don't hold your breath (last guess
I heard wa
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > There was a discussion about this recently... So I thought I'd mention this:
> > This is posted on cola; looks neat to me:
> >
[snip]
> The premise is that a run level is _clearly defined_ and
>
> I agree that an x86 only view of the world is stupid. hardware platforms
> are becoming more meaningless all the time. However, I do belive that it
> is worth thinking of "free" standards independantly of "comercial"
> standards. Sure we can adopt the commercial standards if they are good
> eno
Hi,
>>"Donovan" == Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donovan> So excuse me if I have got this wrong, but does that mean
Donovan> going from run level 2 to run level 7 requires running all K*
Donovan> then S* in run level 3, then all K* then S* in run level 4,
Donovan> then all K* then S*
[...]
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> You are hereby excused. *Nothing* has an S* in more than one
> level. A package is meant to be at a certain run level and higher. A
> level 3 package is started at run level 3, killed in run level 2, and
> at *no* other level. See how this works?
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> So excuse me if I have got this wrong, but does that mean going from run
> level 2 to run level 7 requires running all K* then S* in run level 3,
> then all K* then S* in run level 4, then all K* then S* in run level 5,
> . all the way up to run leve
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> *Nothing* has an S* in more than one level. A package is meant to be at a
> certain run level and higher. A level 3 package is started at run level
> 3, killed in run level 2, and at *no* other level. See how this works?
Simple and elegant, but not very flexible. How ab
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> *Nothing* has an S* in more than one level. A package is meant to be at a
>> certain run level and higher. A level 3 package is started at run level
>> 3, killed in run level 2, and at *no* other level. See how this works?
>
>Simple and
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > So excuse me if I have got this wrong, but does that mean going from run
> > level 2 to run level 7 requires running all K* then S* in run level 3,
> > then all K* then S* in run level 4, then all K* th
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Dima wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >> *Nothing* has an S* in more than one level. A package is meant to be at a
> >> certain run level and higher. A level 3 package is started at run level
> >> 3, killed in run level 2, and at *no* other
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote:
> [...]
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > You are hereby excused. *Nothing* has an S* in more than one
> > level. A package is meant to be at a certain run level and higher. A
> > level 3 package is started at run level 3, killed in run le
On 14 Aug 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
> > *Nothing* has an S* in more than one level. A package is meant to be at a
> > certain run level and higher. A level 3 package is started at run level
> > 3, killed in run level 2, and at *no* other level. See how this works?
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Dima wrote:
>
>> Also, runlevels _are flexible. Nobody can force me to start networking
>> daemons at RL 2 -- I can bloody well start them from ip-up when I ring my
>> ISP, at whatever runlevel I happen to be then. (In practice I d
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Dima wrote:
> Assuming "runlevel" is roughly equivalent to "state", the above model is
> a stack of states. A state transition diagram would be a (potentially fully
> connected) graph of states. (Potentially) what a mess. :)
I don't think so. Just because it's potentially fu
17 matches
Mail list logo
