On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 05:25:09PM +1100, Ken Yap wrote:
> While it's an interesting and potentially unifying idea to try equate
> the set of installed packages (to the Debianite with a hammer,
> everything looks like a nail)
What exactly is this in response to?
When has anyone said that runlevels should equal the set of installed packages?
> really something different, they define sets of services and the
> transitions between those sets. The standard calls for 7 levels. There
Yes exactly.
> is one more: S. And in fact you can use 7-9 but they are not documented
> and not portable. There is a comprehensive set of actions possible for
> services at each level. If you wanted a packaging system to take over
> this task you'd have to augment the packagers. In short, package
> management systems and service management systems are different animals.
Yes, but I want my packaging system to maintain the set the packages
that each service level will run.
Anand
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
