In some email I received from Brett Lymn, sie wrote:
> According to Darren Reed:
> >
> > add a new option, "SECURELEVEL" which is the default value
> >for securelevel - and that only.  Yes, this will `break' config files but
> >that would happen anyway, for someone.
> >
> 
> It would break more than config files unless you are going to do some
> careful coding that will allow certain operations such as mounting
> disks, accessing the raw devs (fsck) and so forth before SECURELEVEL
> came into effect.  Otherwise you will end up with a broken system due
> to the securelevel blocking operations that need to happen to get the
> system up and running.

Oh! Right, my comments imply you could do "SECURELEVEL=2" and build a
kernel that way (took me a second to work out what the problem was here).

That would be interesting indeed :-)

I was just thinking people would make it -1/0 as appropriate...but it
could lead to disasters, yes. hmm.

Darren