From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
Reasonable rational. Though one preference of mine has been to prepend
a '_' (eg: _S99foo _K99foo). Makes clear what's been changed. More
recently, I modify through update-rc.d.
Does that work? (Doesn't that break if the control script uses glob
pattern
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 07:49:37PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
Reasonable rational. Though one preference of mine has been to prepend
a '_' (eg: _S99foo _K99foo). Makes clear what's been changed. More
recently, I modify through update-rc.d.
Does
If so, what _is_ the proper way to do this with Debian?
You can just delete the links you don't want
I've always felt that it's better to change the link from S to K,
instead of just deleting it.
Say for example you delete the xdm link from runlevels 2, 3, and 4. So
you change to 5, xdm
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 01:17:42PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
If so, what _is_ the proper way to do this with Debian?
You can just delete the links you don't want
I've always felt that it's better to change the link from S to K,
instead of just deleting it.
Say for example you delete the
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 10:52:49PM -0500, Brad wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 01:17:42PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
If so, what _is_ the proper way to do this with Debian?
You can just delete the links you don't want
I've always felt that it's better to change the link from S to K,
- When will Debian follow the Linux Standard Base with respect to init
- runlevels? The current scheme (still in potato, I haven't checked
- woody) basically has just 2 distinct levels - single user and fully
- operational. This throws away most of the power of sysvinit (which
- comes at the
I agree, besides that, if you regretted changing it from S - K,
you can undo the sequence ;)
Eugene ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- Original Message -
From: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 11:52
Subject: Re: more real runlevels?
When will Debian follow the Linux Standard Base with respect to init
runlevels? The current scheme (still in potato, I haven't checked
woody) basically has just 2 distinct levels - single user and fully
operational. This throws away most of the power of sysvinit (which
comes at the cost of
I would like to run the system without xdm most of the time, but there
are times when I need it. Also sometimes I want to switch off network
services but still allow local logins.
mee too. i must admit, that this is a point, where suse and redhat are
better than debian. :'-(
I can make my
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
I would like to run the system without xdm most of the time, but there
are times when I need it. Also sometimes I want to switch off network
services but still allow local logins.
mee too. i must admit, that this is a point, where suse and
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 07:52:18PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
I would like to run the system without xdm most of the time, but there
are times when I need it. Also sometimes I want to switch off network
services but still allow local logins.
mee too. i must admit, that this is a
11 matches
Mail list logo
