On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:09:55 +0100, Simon wrote in message
<5F3BA84F-752C-4BEE-B0C6-8E31B10F3A02@???>:

> Arnt Karlsen <arnt@???> wrote:
>
> > ..well, that's still 256 possible runlevel names. ;o)
>
> TBH, I don't think there's all that much scope for **usefully** using
> lots of runlevels.
>
> To start with, (near enough) every package comes with a control
> script for rc to use - and which contains comments to signal to the
> management scripts what runlevels the daemon in intended to run in.
> So you'd have to edit all of those so that update-rc can do it's job
> easily.

..before we get that far, we still have those 3 vacant runlevels
most people never use, which _are_ supported by update-rc. :o)

> And of course, once you do that then you get into all the
> problems that come with editing package supplied files- having to
> choose between your own or the (possibly updated) package supplied
> one, and re-applying changes if you choose to use the updated package
> supplied file.
>
> And then there is the issue that if you want different combinations
> of daemons running, then you need to list all those that need to run
> in each combination. Unless you only need a small number of
> combinations (in which case the spare ones of 3,4,5 are likely to
> suffice)

..aye, e.g. 3 for "on work wifi", 4 for "on phone wifi" and 5
for "record drone FPV video" would work for people like me.

> then it's likely to turn into quite a PITA.

..aye, I was thinking "systemd isolate" style idiot stunt things, not
combinations of those, which would be an awesomely bad idea. ;o)

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.