On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 06:50:01PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > - LSB 1.1 specifies definitions for run levels 2-5 that correspond > with most Red Hat-like distributions. Debian does not specify run > levels 3-5, and RL 2 can theoretically encompass any of LSB 2-5. > > (LSB probably should implement init dependencies for facilities > expected in run levels, rather than using run levels directly.)
This was discussed on one of the LSB lists (-spec? -discuss? both?) back when the 1.0 spec came out; the conclusion was basically that Debian should just translate those runlevels into the Debian equivalents. That is, just because a script specifies runlevel 5 but not 2, doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up in runlevel 3 on Debian if that's what's appropriate. > [...] however, my gut feeling is > that any LSB RL from 2-5 should be treated as 2-5 inclusive on > Debian until Debian conforms (unlikely for woody) or LSB is amended > to get rid of this silliness. There are also systems out there that don't use runlevels, or that have user defined runlevels that aren't remotely related to the numbers Red Hat uses, which the LSB ought to support. > There may be other deviations from the spec; they are bugs and should > be reported as such. (The aforementioned deviations are bugs, but > probably "wontfix" for woody, or are bugs in the spec.) You should also mention that the uid for "bin" isn't 1 as the LSB specifies. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/ ``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
