[ale] Ubuntu upgrade

[Brian Pitts]

On 07/05/2010 09:34 PM, Jim Kinney wrote:
> Thanks for the corrections.
>
> Design question: why are runlevels 2-5 identical? Granted the "old way"
> was to have different levels to do different things. Upstart is a
> different init process but there is still a need to have differentiation
> between different running conditions (in my mind at least).

This isn't about upstart versus sysv. Fedora uses upstart, after all. As 
far as I know Debian has always been this way. Someone with more Debian 
knowledge will have to explain the design decision. Compared the Red Hat 
it's more of an indecision, really.

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch03.en.html#_stage_4_the_normal_debian_system

> F13 is using grub 0.97 so I have not had to make the big leap in grub
> versions. Not looking forward to it becoming more like the old lilo
> where changed had to be compiled in...

It'll stump you when you're first confronted with it, but then you'll 
decide that /etc/default/grub and /etc/grub.d/ (or wherever fedora puts 
the config when they get around to it) aren't too hard to wrap your head 
around. It should avoid some problems from grub legacy. You had to be 
careful how you edited the grub configuration or your package manager 
might clobber your changes. Similarly, say you want to have puppet 
ensure that any new kernels installed via your package manager are 
configured to output to a serial console. This would be difficult to do 
with just grub.conf, but easy when grub.conf is generated pulling some 
values from a puppet-managed /etc/default/grub.

You can still make one-time configuration changes during boot, so if you 
"compile in" the wrong settings you're not screwed.

-- 
All the best,
Brian Pitts