|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > March 2005 > NoX idea
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Jesus Climent 2005-03-01, 8:48 pm |
| What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
and grep for nox?
I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode, and it would
be nice to just add an append to the kernel command line to stop it from
running...
Any comments?
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.10|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
London. You know... fish, chips, cup o' tea, bad food, worse weather,
Mary-XXXXing-Poppins... London!
--Avi (Snatch)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Koch 2005-03-01, 8:48 pm |
| On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 11:36:46PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
> and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode, and it would
> be nice to just add an append to the kernel command line to stop it from
> running...
>
> Any comments?
Why dont you just utilise the runlevels ? runlevel 2 without *dm, 3 with
*dm. That is what I do all the time. Pretty easy to do. In Grub I just
tell to start runlevel 2 or 3.
Michael
--
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Sean Perry 2005-03-01, 8:48 pm |
| Jesus Climent wrote:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
> and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode, and it would
> be nice to just add an append to the kernel command line to stop it from
> running...
>
> Any comments?
>
1) use runlevels, also specified at the command line
or
2) check for nox in the init script(s)
Should be easy for you to do locally and since the init scripts are
conffiles your mods will survive.
I do not see this being useful for most people. If they installed the dm
they probably want X. As I mentioned above, if you know there are
occasions when you want a minimal boot up, runlevels are a great solution.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Gustavo Noronha Silva 2005-03-01, 8:48 pm |
| Em Ter, 2005-03-01 Ã_s 23:36 +0100, Jesus Climent escreveu:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
> and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode, and it would
> be nice to just add an append to the kernel command line to stop it from
> running...
>
> Any comments?
I like the idea. I sometimes miss an easy way to say "don't start X",
too, although most times I do want it to run.
See ya!
--
kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://couve.no-ip.org/~kov/>
Debian: <http://www.debian.org/> * <http://www.debian-br.org/>
| |
| Bernd Eckenfels 2005-03-01, 8:48 pm |
| In article <20050301223645.GG30082@genarin.hispalinux.es> you wrote:
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode
what about runlevel 2? 
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Koch 2005-03-02, 2:48 am |
| On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:06:41PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Ter, 2005-03-01 às 23:36 +0100, Jesus Climent escreveu:
>
> I like the idea. I sometimes miss an easy way to say "don't start X",
> too, although most times I do want it to run.
is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
Michael
--
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ken Bloom 2005-03-02, 2:48 am |
| On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:36:46 +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from
> /proc/cmdline and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode, and it
> would be nice to just add an append to the kernel command line to stop it
> from running...
>
> Any comments?
Along with all of the explanation about how to set up a runlevel to start
without X, I'll just mention that to actually boot the kernel in that
runlevel, you just use the number of that runlevel as a free option on the
kernel commandline.
If you were using lilo, then you could configure the kernel to boot into
runlevel 2 (instead of the default set in /etc/inittab) by using
append="2"
in the kernel stanza meant for this, or by just running
linux 2
(assuming linux was the name of your normal stanza)
--Ken Bloom
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Christoph Berg 2005-03-02, 7:51 am |
| Re: Michael Koch in <20050302060605.GB3448@papacharly.konqueror.de>
> is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
Please don't recommend rm'ing the S* links. Rename them to K* instead
or else they will be recreated on the next upgrade.
Christoph
--
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
| |
| Christoph Berg 2005-03-02, 7:51 am |
| Re: Sean Perry in <4224F380.6020402@speakeasy.net>
Would be neat
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Should be easy for you to do locally and since the init scripts are
> conffiles your mods will survive.
I guess the suggestion was to set that up per default. Currently, all
(most?) packages configure all runlevels the same, afaik. (I wonder
why so many suggested using runlevel 2 for it?! Runlevel 2 is the
default on Debian, and all DMs do run there.)
> I do not see this being useful for most people. If they installed the dm
> they probably want X. As I mentioned above, if you know there are
> occasions when you want a minimal boot up, runlevels are a great solution.
It would be nice for occasional no-X booting, e.g. for debugging. But
then there's still single user mode for that, so "wasting" a whole
runlevel for it doesn't seem so useful. The "nox" boot parameter seems
much less intrusive.
Who's going to file the wishlist bugs?
Christoph
--
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
| |
| Tollef Fog Heen 2005-03-02, 7:51 am |
| * Christoph Berg
| Re: Michael Koch in <20050302060605.GB3448@papacharly.konqueror.de>
| > is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
|
| Please don't recommend rm'ing the S* links. Rename them to K* instead
| or else they will be recreated on the next upgrade.
Removing just a single link is fine. They will only be recreated if
they are all removed.
--
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Olaf Conradi 2005-03-02, 6:11 pm |
| On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:53:30 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
> * Christoph Berg
>
> | Re: Michael Koch in <20050302060605.GB3448@papacharly.konqueror.de>
> | > is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
> |
> | Please don't recommend rm'ing the S* links. Rename them to K* instead
> | or else they will be recreated on the next upgrade.
>
> Removing just a single link is fine. They will only be recreated if
> they are all removed.
It is fine upgrade wise, but don't forget about the case of switching
runlevels on a running system.
By turning the link into K* shuts down the program when switching from
a higher runlevel to a lower runlevel.
-Olaf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Koch 2005-03-02, 6:11 pm |
| On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:45:26PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Michael Koch in <20050302060605.GB3448@papacharly.konqueror.de>
>
> Please don't recommend rm'ing the S* links. Rename them to K* instead
> or else they will be recreated on the next upgrade.
Read the policy. They will only be created when *ALL* runlevel links are
deleted.
Michael
--
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Gustavo Noronha Silva 2005-03-02, 6:11 pm |
| [No need to CC me, I'm on the list]
Em Qua, 2005-03-02 Ã_s 07:06 +0100, Michael Koch escreveu:
>
> is "rm /etc/rc2.d/S99gdm" not easy enough for you ?
Easy enough for me in my system. It would be nice to have a standard way
of telling the system to not start X on any Debian system while keeping
X start up being the default without the need of messing
with /etc/rc?.d/ and/or /etc/inittab.
Thanks,
--
kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://couve.no-ip.org/~kov/>
Debian: <http://www.debian.org/> * <http://www.debian-br.org/>
| |
| Tim Cutts 2005-03-02, 6:11 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2 Mar 2005, at 2:58 pm, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> [No need to CC me, I'm on the list]
>
> Em Qua, 2005-03-02 =E0s 07:06 +0100, Michael Koch escreveu:
X",[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Easy enough for me in my system. It would be nice to have a standard=20=
> way
> of telling the system to not start X on any Debian system while =
keeping
> X start up being the default without the need of messing
> with /etc/rc?.d/ and/or /etc/inittab.
It would also make pre-seeded installs easier; we're trying to get this=20=
working at the moment at work, but there's a nasty interaction between=20=
recent 2.6 kernels, udev, and gdm, causing the X server to wedge (I=20
understand from the person dealing with this that it's because udev=20
hasn't been started at the point in the install that gdm tries to=20
start). Given that the machine is still installing at this point, gdm=20=
trying to start up seems a little unnecessary, and a simple way to=20
avoid it would help. Obviously I've given pretty much the same list of=20=
suggestions as this thread to the admin doing our Debian desktop=20
installs.
Tim
- --=20
Dr Tim Cutts
GPG: 1024/D FC81E159 5BA6 8CD4 2C57 9824 6638 C066 16E2 F4F5 FC81 E159
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin)
iQEVAwUBQiXdYRypeFo2odvPAQiIoAf+N+Vzx4H4
+MUnvmhAzkrqIlphYy2j4Old
rNZIXg8rlVn5aLhkJxcHsR2yxjgr5NBdxTel6a1o
g9BQuMgbKLVe0HcKF2KcrK6I
zAhRYr8twP/ CHDAWjZQ9xs4J8htFNcdDiJHlJT4NEAu302SUmMW
XGYRP2OMPJQey
XR6CfayzkaboeOCBRTvM+Y0lWqx0LWCQpoi6wz8q
1/KV46RVuW76FCnb4E2cd0xh
t0WwgWE7Ejtyi7jp/ +Vfuz145yNmikuvVyzi5vLFDqiaEQrVn8HZcwLd7
sDR/XKL
7X6qvF/OxLKeZmSJpPCp2PevR/1WXjWdljHkJBje4vyIu3B3yUm7RA=3D=3D
=3DLMSB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Henning Makholm 2005-03-02, 6:11 pm |
| Scripsit Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Easy enough for me in my system. It would be nice to have a standard way
> of telling the system to not start X on any Debian system while keeping
> X start up being the default without the need of messing
> with /etc/rc?.d/ and/or /etc/inittab.
Why? Using runlevels and appropriate local configuration of the rcN.d
links *is* the official, standard, supported way of controlling which
services get started when on Debian system (and most other unices with
System V-like boot procedures).
--
Henning Makholm "En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i
spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ..."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Steve Greenland 2005-03-02, 6:11 pm |
| On 02-Mar-05, 07:55 (CST), Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> wrote:
> It would be nice for occasional no-X booting, e.g. for debugging. But
> then there's still single user mode for that, so "wasting" a whole
> runlevel for it doesn't seem so useful. The "nox" boot parameter seems
> much less intrusive.
Sure, until someone want's 'nonfs', and someone else wants 'nocups', etc.
etc. etc.
Why is that people won't use the working, standard, way to do this?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Jesus Climent 2005-03-03, 2:52 am |
| On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:09:00AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <20050301223645.GG30082@genarin.hispalinux.es> you wrote:
>
> what about runlevel 2?
Well, my point was to have a common predefined way of doing it: once you
install kdm (or someone else), or move to xdm or whatever, you still can
disable the start of X by putting nox in the command line, instead of having
to erase the links in rc2.d.
J
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.10|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
I don't wanna hear old sad bastard music Barry, I just want something I can
ignore.
--Rob (High Fidelity)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Joel Aelwyn 2005-03-03, 5:59 pm |
| On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 11:36:46PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> What would people think about adding a check on all the *dm managers (read
> kdm, gdm and friends) about cheking the kernel command line from /proc/cmdline
> and grep for nox?
>
> I have the need some times to start a laptop with console mode, and it would
> be nice to just add an append to the kernel command line to stop it from
> running...
>
> Any comments?
Apart from the many people pointing out that this is what runlevels are
for, I will point out that it is not a safe assumption to presume that
/proc/cmdline exists... (some systems really mean "proc" when they have
/proc mounted, if they have it mounted at all, not "random system
information").
It also looks like /proc/self/cmdline is more universal, if anyone did
need to do something of the sort.
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
| |
| Robert Carboneau 2005-03-03, 8:47 pm |
| Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> It also looks like /proc/self/cmdline is more universal, if anyone did
> need to do something of the sort.
But that's just the process's command line, isn't it? I thought they
were looking for the kernel command line.
-- Rob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Joel Aelwyn 2005-03-03, 8:47 pm |
| On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:14:06PM -0800, Robert Carboneau wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn wrote:
>
> But that's just the process's command line, isn't it? I thought they
> were looking for the kernel command line.
If so... then it's flat-out not available on the set of systems in
question, at least via /proc. If available at all, it would probably live
in sysctl (no, that isn't the same thing as /proc/sys, which is the Linux
way of reinventing the wheel as a square).
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
| |
| Bernd Eckenfels 2005-03-03, 8:47 pm |
| In article <20050303225959.GQ28249@spawn.internal.mnemosyne-consulting.com> you wrote:
> If so... then it's flat-out not available on the set of systems in
> question
Hm? it is on all my systems:
# cat /proc/cmdline
auto BOOT_IMAGE=v2.6.8.1 ro root=811
Greetings
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Paul Hampson 2005-03-04, 2:52 am |
| On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:14AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <20050303225959.GQ28249@spawn.internal.mnemosyne-consulting.com> you wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hm? it is on all my systems:
> # cat /proc/cmdline
> auto BOOT_IMAGE=v2.6.8.1 ro root=811
Can we assume your systems are all Linux-based Debian? I expect
neither of the BSD-type Debian ports has anything in /proc that's
not a pid or self... I have a sneaking suspicion that the Hurd-
based Debian port is like that too, but I've never booted Hurd.
I'm not gonna speculate on the win32-based port that may or may
not actually have come into existance, but I strongly doubt it
has (would have) a /proc on the grounds that the win32 kernel
doesn't actually have a / to mount things under...
And given that even Linux itself is looking to migrate non-PID
things from /proc to /sys where sensible, I wouldn't rely on
things like /proc/cmdline to be around come Linux 2.8.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
Paul.Hampson@Anu.edu.au
"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"
This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial
use, duplication and distribution.
-----------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Benjamin Mesing 2005-03-04, 2:52 am |
|
> Well, my point was to have a common predefined way of doing it: once you
> install kdm (or someone else), or move to xdm or whatever, you still can
> disable the start of X by putting nox in the command line, instead of having
> to erase the links in rc2.d.
Acutally there should be no link in runlevel 2 to start a *dm because
runlevel 2 is for console only mode.
Greetings Ben
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Koch 2005-03-04, 2:52 am |
| On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:04:21AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
>
> Acutally there should be no link in runlevel 2 to start a *dm because
> runlevel 2 is for console only mode.
Thats not true. Read the Debian Policy. Its just that some other
distributions use runlevel 2 for console mode. In Debian thats all up to
the user/administrator of the system. Of course we can change this but
its not true currently.
Michael
--
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Benjamin Mesing 2005-03-04, 7:48 am |
|
> Thats not true. Read the Debian Policy. Its just that some other
> distributions use runlevel 2 for console mode. In Debian thats all up to
> the user/administrator of the system. Of course we can change this but
> its not true currently.
Sorry, consider me spoiled by SuSE which I am forced to use at work
(better than Windows though :-) I thought this part was common.
Are there any efforts to standartise the runlevel configurations going?
Greetings Ben
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 2005-03-04, 7:48 am |
| | |
| Benjamin Mesing 2005-03-04, 7:48 am |
| > see
> http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.ph...neric/set1.html
> for what the LSB has to say about the subject
So its seems SuSE was following LSB recommendations.
Just wondering if Debian should switch to LSB recommendation
Well, I see that there was some lengthy discussion about it
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...1/msg01898.html) so I don't
want a new one to be launched unless there are new arguments or
statements to added. But could someone tell me if there are official
plans to switch to LSB, perhaps this is something to be targeted for the
release after sarge?
Greetings Ben
LSB recommends:
0 halt
1 single user mode
2 multiuser with no network services exported
3 normal/full multiuser
4 reserved for local use, default is normal/full multiuser
5 multiuser with xdm or equivalent
6 reboot
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Joel Aelwyn 2005-03-04, 5:58 pm |
| On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:31:06PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:14AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
>
>
> Can we assume your systems are all Linux-based Debian? I expect
> neither of the BSD-type Debian ports has anything in /proc that's
> not a pid or self... I have a sneaking suspicion that the Hurd-
> based Debian port is like that too, but I've never booted Hurd.
As noted to a couple of people in private, this is specifically the case.
On NetBSD, /proc is solely process info (and is, in fact, entirely optional
right now, if recommended). Stuff found in /proc/sys is found with sysctl,
but there isn't really any preservation of information about the kernel
startup that I know of; I can't speak for Hurd ports.
> I'm not gonna speculate on the win32-based port that may or may
> not actually have come into existance, but I strongly doubt it
> has (would have) a /proc on the grounds that the win32 kernel
> doesn't actually have a / to mount things under...
Can't comment on this.
> And given that even Linux itself is looking to migrate non-PID
> things from /proc to /sys where sensible, I wouldn't rely on
> things like /proc/cmdline to be around come Linux 2.8.
We can only hope (though cmdline stuff is still, in some sense, proc
related... /proc/kernel?)
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
| |
| Bernd Eckenfels 2005-03-04, 5:58 pm |
| In article <20050304033106.GA17116@keitarou.bubblesworth.net> you wrote:
> Can we assume your systems are all Linux-based Debian?
Frankly I dont care about others, yes. I mean it is OK to use portable
interfaces where present, I just dont think this works in all cases.
In that specific case of course runlevel is already a general solution (I
asume this is somehow emulated on windows?)
Greetings
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Henning Makholm 2005-03-05, 7:47 am |
| Scripsit Benjamin Mesing <bensmail@gmx.net>
> Just wondering if Debian should switch to LSB recommendation
> LSB recommends:
> 0 halt=09
> 1 single user mode=09
> 2 multiuser with no network services exported=09
> 3 normal/full multiuser=09
> 4 reserved for local use, default is normal/full multiuser=09
> 5 multiuser with xdm or equivalent=09
> 6 reboot
That seems awfully restrictive, only giving the local admin a single
runlevel to customize to his own needs.
--=20
Henning Makholm "Nej, hvor er vi alts=E5 heldige! L=
=E6nge
leve vor Buxg=F8rer Sansibar Bastelve=
l!"
| |
| Sven Mueller 2005-03-06, 2:48 am |
| Henning Makholm wrote on 05/03/2005 12:17:
> Scripsit Benjamin Mesing <bensmail@gmx.net>
>
>
>
>
> That seems awfully restrictive, only giving the local admin a single
> runlevel to customize to his own needs.
Well, for one, SysV-Init isn't restricted to the 7 runlevels listed
above. And also, I can't imagine which other runlevels a local admin
might want. And finally: There is nothing which could keep the local
admin from modifying the runlevels. His system would just not comply
with LSB anymore.
cu,
sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|