NVidia Debian thread

[C M Reinehr]

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 11:33, David Bandel wrote:
> On 1/31/07, C M Reinehr <cmr at amsent.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 10:29, Michael Hipp wrote:
> > > C M Reinehr wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 30 January 2007 12:16, Ric Moore wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 11:29 -0600, C M Reinehr wrote:
> > > >>>   I wouldn't say that it ignores run levels, just that it has a
> > > >>> slightly different way of organizing them (as it does many other
> > > >>> facets of Linux). Run level 0 = full stop, run level 1 = single
> > > >>> user, run level 2 = multi-user & run level 6 = reboot. IANAE but I
> > > >>> think the only real difference, here, is that using run levels of
> > > >>> 3, 4 or 5 is left to the discretion of the user. IIRC this is quite
> > > >>> similar to COL except that COL didn't start the X-server until run
> > > >>> level 3 or 4, but I could be mistaken.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is there an LSB stance on this?? I'm used to runlevel 3 being text
> > > >> mode and runlevel 5 being X and 6 for shutdown to reboot. Go figure.
> > > >> Ric
> > > >
> > > > There is:
> > > >
> > > > http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core
> > > >-gen eric/runlevels.html
> > > >
> > > >   0  halt
> > > >   1  single user mode
> > > >   2  multiuser with no network services exported
> > > >   3  normal/full multiuser
> > > >   4  reserved for local use, default is normal/full multiuser
> > > >   5  multiuser with a display manager or equivalent
> > > >   6  reboot
> > > >   Note: These run levels were chosen as reflecting the most frequent
> > > > existing practice, and in the absence of other considerations,
> > > > implementors are strongly encouraged to follow this convention to
> > > > provide consistency for system administrators who need to work with
> > > > multiple distributions.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that, in general, Debian conforms with the LSB. From the
> > > > Debian Reference Manual:
> > >
> > > I don't see how you can say that. On Debian systems 2-5 are identical
> > > where they are not in the LSB. Debian starts in RL2 and has
> > > *everything* running there, including the display manager. But that's
> > > not what the LSB seems to call for.
> > >
> > > Caveat: I'm going mostly by what my Ubuntu systems do, I assume it's
> > > directly copied from Debian.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > I guess it depends upon your interpretation of "in general". :-)
> >
> > The overall architecture of the system initialization and the
> > organization of Debian  init scripts & run levels conforms to the LSB.
> > The only place that they differ from the LSB, that I have seen, is in
> > their definition of run levels 2 though 5. I have no idea why they choose
> > to differ in this respect, but per the note, this is permissible but not
> > encouraged.
>
> In 1995(?), when I had Slackware, Caldera Desktop Preview 1, and
> Debian running, Debian used runlevel 2 for all but maintenance.
> They've been nothing if not consistent since then.  I suspect they see
> no good reason to change, and thousands of admins used to runlevel 2
> for Debian over the years as the reason not to.
>
> Ciao,
>
> David A. Bandel

When I first made the switch to Debian several years ago I found it 
disconcerting and considered manually changing it, but never got around to 
it. Now, I don't give it a thought. My servers don't run X at all and I 
always use a virtual console when upgrading my desktops, so there's no 
problem if apt wants to restart the X server. The only time it's an issue is 
if I'm having problems with my X configuration but that's rare any more.

Cheers!

cmr
-- 
Debian 'Etch' - Registered Linux User #241964
--------
"More laws, less justice." -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC