On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 11:35:59AM +0200, Bodo Meissner wrote: > > Why do we require all compliant distributions to use runlevels in the same > way? There might be reasons for a different runlevel numbering scheme. > Or there might be other ways to do the system initialization without > runlevels at all. I think the definition of symbolic names (facilities) > would be more flexible.
I believe the motivation was to allow the ISV to know what runlevels they should default to on in their init scripts. I would be interested in having something more flexible as well. Cheers, Matt
