SLUG Mailing List Archives
[SLUG] Re: packages and run levels
- To: Sydney Linux Users Group <slug@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [SLUG] Re: packages and run levels
- From: Angus Lees <gusl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri Sep 22 20:02:51 2000
- User-agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 06:30:51PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 06:14:54PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > 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) with a particular runlevel,
> > > runlevels are really something different, they define sets of
> > > services and the transitions between those sets.
transitions? a new runlevel doesn't even know what the previous
> > > There is a comprehensive set of actions possible for services at
> > > each level.
what "start" and "stop" ?
> > > 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.
i disagree. using the assumption that if its installed you want it run
by default, and ensuring that a package provides at most one service,
then its easy to to infer a "service management system" from the
> > When has anyone said that runlevels should equal the set of installed packages?
> Gus did. Boy was he wrong. Good for temporarily service problems but if you
> want an automated means to do it runlevels do.
i didn't think i did say that.
here's what i want (and pretty much what i and most other debian boxen
do, from what i understand):
run levels S, 0, 1, 6 are obviously special, so they stay as they are.
the other runlevels are treated equally, with the scope for the admin
to change them if required.
i don't see any point in separating the other runlevels (4 of them + a
few extras if you're lucky) by default. if you want something
installed, you probably want to run it. if you don't have it
installed, you obviously don't want to run it.
sure there are a few cases where its the easiest solution to just
switch runlevels (we've had *one* example so far). but thats a
sysadmin issue and will no doubt always be a specific solution to a
specific problem. the ability to have different runlevels is there if
a particular situation requires it.
what i don't get the point of is standardising on a set of features at
each runlevel. the only result would be that everyone has to ask "how
do i get X to start automatically", and everyone replying "change the
runlevel to 5" as it used to be for redhat (5 is the default now?).
i don't see why standardising the runlevels buys you anything. you
can't claim that there are only 4 possible combinations of services
that all machines (or enough to warrant a standard) need to switch
between, and that they actually need to switch between them (often
enough to warrant having them as a standard).
further, standardising the runlevels *reduces* the scope for a
sysadmin who actually needs them. if you have to end up modifying the
default runlevels, and those defaults are so universally adopted that
no-one expects otherwise, then each change will have to be carefully
documented and justified to avoid surprising new admins. currently,
switching to a new runlevel gives no preconceived ideas (at least on
debian, i don't know how much the other dists conform to the de-facto
(i think we've now gone full circle in the discussion. end of thread,
unless someone has something new to add.)