* James Hunt ([email protected]) wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 18/06/11 18:33, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >> * Jobs to be disabled in particular runlevels. > > > > Are you sure 'runlevels' should still be the primary way of thinking > > about this? IMHO they've always been confusing. > > I'm not sure what the alternative is - something like whether > > or not they respond to a particular event? > > Then you can have sensible events - e.g. 'startingx' or 'shuttingdown' > > Such a tool could select to filter events so that a script > > no longer responded to an event it would normally trigger on. > I think that's what we're trying to achieve. Upstart (indirectly) supports > runlevels... > > - for LSB compliance > - to smooth the transition from SysV > - for users (something familiar to grasp onto :) > - for services > - allows existing SysV scripts to be run via /etc/init/rc-sysinit.conf > - to simplify the conversion of SysV services to Upstart jobs. > > However, jobs are able to make use of whatever events are appropriate (see > upstart-events(7) on > Ubuntu Natty/Oneiric). However, as discussed recently in Ubuntu, we are > looking to introduce some > new events and job aliases such as "shutdown", "reboot" and "display-manager" > (rather than all the > complexity in gdm.conf) to:
Right, all I was trying to point out was that your proposal started off with runlevels straight away and they were the prime method of describing and thinking about things, where as I think what you're saying is yes we need to support them for all those reasons above, but you're fine for them being compatibility stuff. Dave -- -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code ------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \ \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/ -- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
