Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
According to Yann Dirson: That just go fine, until you try to use 'halt' or 'reboot': as specified in the manpage (yes :), these only call shutdown when in runlevel 1-5. Quite strange IMHO. *BE CAREFUL* trying to reproduce it, it (probably among other unclean things) doesn't unmount cleanly filesystems. I don't know the reason why RLs 7-9 are handled just like 0 and 6. I think it should at least be possible to choose which behaviour they have in this case, if the current behaviour is meaningful (IMHO, it is only meaningful for halt/reboot-like actions). Should this be considered as a bug ? I'll fix it so that it test for (runlevel != 0 runlevel != 6) instead of (runlevel 0 runlevel 6) Mike. -- | Miquel van Smoorenburg | I need more space Well, why not move to Texas | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | No, on my account, stupid. Stupid? Uh-oh..| | PGP fingerprint: FE 66 52 4F CD 59 A5 36 7F 39 8B 20 F1 D6 74 02 | -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
Yann Dirson writes: * that's not complete either. As already mentionned, the manpage tells about undocumented runlevels 7-9. It also poorly tells about those AaBbCc I never really understood. I just tried those runlevels 7-9, with sysvinit_2.71-2. It just need few modifications to have them work: * add rc[7-9].d, and 'cp -d rc2.d/* rcX.d' to get packages setup * add in inittab: runlevel (l7,l8,l9) entries, 7-9-awareness into getty and ctrl-alt-del entries (entries 1-6 and ca) There would surely be other things to update if they are to be used in debian (eg. update-rc.d). That just go fine, until you try to use 'halt' or 'reboot': as specified in the manpage (yes :), these only call shutdown when in runlevel 1-5. Quite strange IMHO. *BE CAREFUL* trying to reproduce it, it (probably among other unclean things) doesn't unmount cleanly filesystems. I don't know the reason why RLs 7-9 are handled just like 0 and 6. I think it should at least be possible to choose which behaviour they have in this case, if the current behaviour is meaningful (IMHO, it is only meaningful for halt/reboot-like actions). Should this be considered as a bug ? -- Yann Dirson e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://monge.univ-mlv.fr/~dirson -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
Alexander Koch writes: ~ # init Usage: init 0123456SsQqAaBbCc 1 is already multiuser, no networking (iirc). single-user is S or s (just like using the single as argument for lilo)! 2 is networking (basic, inn comes up etc) 3 is full networking (whatever you desire) 4 and 5 is to be filled with xdm (x) (for those who desire) 6 is reboot Did I get anything wrong? * I think you at least missed something: runlevel 1 is a temporary one, and automatically switches to S. I think you should never ask 'telinit S', but 'telinit 1' * that's not complete either. As already mentionned, the manpage tells about undocumented runlevels 7-9. It also poorly tells about those AaBbCc I never really understood. More about these ? -- Yann Dirson e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://monge.univ-mlv.fr/~dirson -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
On May 26, Tom Lees wrote No, we don't need xdm in runlevel 4. A better solution would be this (but it is more difficult, requires multiple inetd.conf files):- 2: multiuser, minimal networking, no networking daemons (including inetd). 3: multiuser, client networking (rpc.ugidd, ident, etc.) 4: multiuser, server networking (ftp, http, finger, etc.) 5: empty for making special local runlevel? whenever i was playing around with runlevels, i had runlevel 2 to do system administration (some more programms than runlevel 1/single user. most important : several getty (doing system work with one getty is a pain IMO (think of reading a manpage for special parameter xyz)). please keep runlevel 2 this way, a lot of people will use it this way, i think. no net, not daemons, a few getty and some utilities (filesystems mounted). i ever used 3,4,5 to alternate some program (most difference was with x / without x, but in low memory times, i also had a runlevel with x, but no other daemons like inn, so netscape wasn't that slow). for most people : the basic is, what programs you want to run, and what not. then you try to group these decissions into runlevels. for 10 programs you would need 2^10=1024 runlevels to have all possible situations. even if you drop the unrealistic, you cannot get all possible situations. the only way to reduce the number of runlevels is a) don't do specifig runlevels or b) force a policy. if we are talking about changing runlevels, we should also discuss (these themes came up at the linux kongress in a init system discussion) : a) dependencies or something like that. most daemons won't work without network. nfsd won't work without portmap. etc... b) link policy. i don't know how update-rc.d is working, but there are different aproches (start or stop script in every runlevel, not both; start and stop script in a runlevel, or none; stoping daemons with a stop script in the old / the new runlevel etc.) i know, update-rc.d manages these things, but whe should have a document, that shows how everything is working, and why we ar edoning it that way. c) some program, that can show : these programs are running / these programs should be running. d) standart for scripts: every script has start and stop. but what about restart or reload or ... ? (that's an example, why i would like to have debian in one big cvs source - you could checkout all init.d scripts, modify them, check them in, and all packages would get fixed with the next release.) currently debian is using numbers to mark when to start / stop a program. we should have a policy what these number mean. think of topics like /var is mounted and rw or /tmp is rw etc. yes, there are systems with read-only filesystems all the time ... more stuff to think about and discuss. comments are welcome. regards, andreas (good night, it's 2 a.m.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Jellinghaus) wrote on 27.05.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On May 26, Kai Henningsen wrote [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Vygonets) wrote on 26.05.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6) seems to be the standard in Linux boxen now, but why? It's been standard in runlevel-based Unix for a long time. That's probably because traditionally, 6 is the last available runlevel; so 6 is traditionally reboot, and 0 is halt, on every Unix system that has runlevels. maybe that was some time ago, but runlevels 7,8,9 are also available (sysvinit can do them), and IIRC i also read something about runlevels a,b,c. miquel ? Don't confuse the Linux sysvinit with the real SysV init. I've been talking about the latter. I've never seen runlevels higher than 6 used on those systems. I'm not completely sure, but I suspect there's also near-universal consensus that 1 is more-or-less single user. S is an acronym for Single user, that's runlevel 1. are there more acronyms / short cuts ? btw: s will not work (but IIRC in old init it was working (in my pre debian time)). It ought to work. You tell init to switch runlevels eith either the init or the telinit command, depending on version; it should accept a runlevel number (traditionally 1-6), s or S for single user, and q or Q for re-read inittab. MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
On 23 May 1997, Milan Zamazal wrote: I know nothing about runlevel standards, just my opinions: Same here. AK == Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AK: level 1 is without net, 2 is with it all (imo including nfs AK: and the like) and 3 is xdm, 6 was shutdown or halt or AK: whatsoever. at least that i remember from some german AK: distribution. I'm no big sysadmin but I think we can use all 1 to 4 levels. One free runlevel could be enough (in actually, if *I* need some modifications, I make them by modifying existing runlevels not creating new ones). AK: default runlevel is 2 so why should nfs start with 3? I'd like something similar to: 1: single user 2: multiuser with minimal networking, probably without offering services 3: full networking (NFS, xfs, anonymous ftp, ...) 4: xdm? (yes, it is common on Slackware and RedHat to start xdm according to runlevel, but maybe Debian /etc/X11/config concept is better) No, we don't need xdm in runlevel 4. A better solution would be this (but it is more difficult, requires multiple inetd.conf files):- 2: multiuser, minimal networking, no networking daemons (including inetd). 3: multiuser, client networking (rpc.ugidd, ident, etc.) 4: multiuser, server networking (ftp, http, finger, etc.) 5: empty for making special local runlevel? Yes, good idea. So if I want to do something without being too used from outer world, I can switch to level 2 (and I can still telnet or ftp somewhere). AK: if 3 gets xdm, perhaps gpm should be disabled and the like? Remark: gpm should be disabled only when it doesn't work as a repeater. It doesn't need to be disabled, it just saves memory. It will detect when X starts up, and give up its own handling of the mouse. Only PS/2 mouse devices used cause a major problem with this (single-open only), but they don't do that any more IIRC. BTW, I don't like RedHat concept of empty level *4*. When I upgraded HW on some RedHat machine, I lowered default level from 5 to 4 in expection it will disable just xdm. Then I spent an hour looking for explanation, why many services don't start after changing HW. After I explored runlevel 4 was empty, I was far from being polite... Agreed. I think a better way than doing runlevels directly in packages, though, may be to set a package startup script's type - minnet, netclient, netserver, misc, etc. Then, define runlevels to include certain types of script. Just an idea (very difficult to implement with symlinks for /etc/rc?.d), what does anyone else think? -- Tom Lees [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/ PGP ID 87D4D065, fingerprint 2A 66 86 9D 02 4D A6 1E B8 A2 17 9D 4F 9B 89 D6 finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for full public key (also available on keyservers) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
On Mon, 26 May 1997, Tom Lees wrote: I'd like something similar to: 1: single user 2: multiuser with minimal networking, probably without offering services 3: full networking (NFS, xfs, anonymous ftp, ...) 4: xdm? (yes, it is common on Slackware and RedHat to start xdm according to runlevel, but maybe Debian /etc/X11/config concept is better) I personally would like: 1: single user 2: multi user, NO networking 3: multi user, minimal networking 4: multi user, full networking 5: xdm 6: reboot 7-9: do whatever the heck you want with. SirDibos, telnet://lambda.moo.mud.org: -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
On Mon, 26 May 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6: reboot 7-9: do whatever the heck you want with. BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6) seems to be the standard in Linux boxen now, but why? Vadik. -- Vadim Vygonets * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Unix admin The fish doesn't think, because the fish knows... everything. -- Arizona Dream -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6) seems to be the standard in Linux boxen now, but why? AFAIK, it is 6 for reboot since that is what most othe SysV-ish Unixen use (like Irix and Solaris) -- Richard W Kaszeta Graduate Student/Sysadmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of MN, ME Dept http://www.menet.umn.edu/~kaszeta -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Vygonets) wrote on 26.05.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6) seems to be the standard in Linux boxen now, but why? It's been standard in runlevel-based Unix for a long time. That's probably because traditionally, 6 is the last available runlevel; so 6 is traditionally reboot, and 0 is halt, on every Unix system that has runlevels. I'm not completely sure, but I suspect there's also near-universal consensus that 1 is more-or-less single user. There seems to be a somewhat weaker tradition saying that 2 is normal without net, and 3 is normal with net. Again, none of these traditions are Linux-specific; all are quite a bit older than Linux. MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
Actually Debian could potentially use all the standard levels 0-6 for itself, and we could define the not so standard levels 7-9 to be totally for users purposes. That would give us much more space. We could then even take one of the 0-6 and reserve it for future use by Debian. And users would have plenty of room to play around themselves with 7-9. -Sam Message from Milan Zamazal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 5-23-97: I know nothing about runlevel standards, just my opinions: AK == Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AK: level 1 is without net, 2 is with it all (imo including nfs AK: and the like) and 3 is xdm, 6 was shutdown or halt or AK: whatsoever. at least that i remember from some german AK: distribution. I'm no big sysadmin but I think we can use all 1 to 4 levels. One free runlevel could be enough (in actually, if *I* need some modifications, I make them by modifying existing runlevels not creating new ones). AK: default runlevel is 2 so why should nfs start with 3? I'd like something similar to: 1: single user 2: multiuser with minimal networking, probably without offering services 3: full networking (NFS, xfs, anonymous ftp, ...) 4: xdm? (yes, it is common on Slackware and RedHat to start xdm according to runlevel, but maybe Debian /etc/X11/config concept is better) 5: empty for making special local runlevel? So if I want to do something without being too used from outer world, I can switch to level 2 (and I can still telnet or ftp somewhere). AK: if 3 gets xdm, perhaps gpm should be disabled and the like? Remark: gpm should be disabled only when it doesn't work as a repeater. BTW, I don't like RedHat concept of empty level *4*. When I upgraded HW on some RedHat machine, I lowered default level from 5 to 4 in expection it will disable just xdm. Then I spent an hour looking for explanation, why many services don't start after changing HW. After I explored runlevel 4 was empty, I was far from being polite... -- VA Research Linux Workstations| The World's Best Linux Workstations | http://www.varesearch.com | Now offering VarStation II Systems Sam Ockman - (415)934-3666, ext. 133 | Based on the Intel Pentium II -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
I know nothing about runlevel standards, just my opinions: AK == Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AK: level 1 is without net, 2 is with it all (imo including nfs AK: and the like) and 3 is xdm, 6 was shutdown or halt or AK: whatsoever. at least that i remember from some german AK: distribution. I'm no big sysadmin but I think we can use all 1 to 4 levels. One free runlevel could be enough (in actually, if *I* need some modifications, I make them by modifying existing runlevels not creating new ones). AK: default runlevel is 2 so why should nfs start with 3? I'd like something similar to: 1: single user 2: multiuser with minimal networking, probably without offering services 3: full networking (NFS, xfs, anonymous ftp, ...) 4: xdm? (yes, it is common on Slackware and RedHat to start xdm according to runlevel, but maybe Debian /etc/X11/config concept is better) 5: empty for making special local runlevel? So if I want to do something without being too used from outer world, I can switch to level 2 (and I can still telnet or ftp somewhere). AK: if 3 gets xdm, perhaps gpm should be disabled and the like? Remark: gpm should be disabled only when it doesn't work as a repeater. BTW, I don't like RedHat concept of empty level *4*. When I upgraded HW on some RedHat machine, I lowered default level from 5 to 4 in expection it will disable just xdm. Then I spent an hour looking for explanation, why many services don't start after changing HW. After I explored runlevel 4 was empty, I was far from being polite... Milan Zamazal -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
