>>>>> "BS" == Brian Servis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BS> But if a user removes the S99xdm link in rc2.d then the next BS> time xdm is upgraded it will be added again. This issue of the BS> package managment tools over writing what the system BS> administrator sets has been debated before, in favor of the BS> system administrator(Recall the /usr/doc/*.gz issue recently on BS> -devel). This is what I was describing. Mike, or anyone else, BS> can you clarify why Debian does not have a destinction between BS> user runlevels for things like networking, X, etc? As others have mentioned, this is not the case. However, also note that there probably SHOULD be a link for each package in each runlevel - changing a package to not start in a runlevel should be done by moving the link to from the appropriate S*name to the appropriate K*name, so that the proper things get stopped going down runlevels. Otherwise, runlevels become non-deterministic - for instance, if I remove the xdm link from runlevels 2 and 3, booting to runlevel 4, then switching to runlevel 3 will result in runlevel 3 with xdm running, while booting to runlevel 3 will result in a runlevel 3 without xdm running. If instead the link is moved to the appropriate K link, switching from runlevel 4 to runlevel 3 kills xdm, and now runlevel 3 is the same, whichever direction you cam from (which is probably the intended behavior). -Larry -- Larry Daffner | Linux: Unleash the workstation in your PC! [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://web2.airmail.net/vizzie/ Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain