Subject: Re: take 2; which way should we go for /etc/rc...
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Eduardo E. Horvath <email@example.com>
Date: 12/02/1999 13:24:32
> On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 11:47:39 -0700 (MST)
> Tim Rightnour <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I really do not want runlevels. All I want are "services" If I want the httpd
> > service to start.. I want to just say "/etc/???/httpd start" I've allways
> > hated trying to guess my way through a bunch of meaningless numbers in solaris
> > so I could arrive at some destination point. If I want X running, it shouldn't
> > matter what silly level I'm at.. it should start X.
> So, runlevels are useful in many circumstances... For example, I often boot
> devel machines into single-user mode but also want networking up. Being
> able to boot into runlevel 1 (single-user + networking) would be useful
> to me.
The thing about run levels is that there are a very small number of
them and they have arbitrary meaning. Setting up a custom runlevel is
an awful lot of work, and there are so few of them available.
> Plus, runlevels don't mean you can't say:
> /etc/init.d/httpd start
> In fact, systems with runlevels explitcly support that.
But booting in single user mode and doing `/etc/init.d/httpd start'
Unfortunately, it's not clear it will work with this proposal either.
But we should try to make it work. That is the primary advantage you
can gain through PROVIDES/REQUIRES that you can't easily get through
run levels: building arbitrary run levels as needed.
Eduardo Horvath email@example.com
"I need to find a pithy new quote." -- me