On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:50:11AM -0500, Greg Swift wrote: > > I am not saying it is required to be compliant, I'm saying that it is > syntactically correct. I may be wrong, but I hold to what I say. In > the old chkconfig method you defined start and stop order, and orders > it should be on in when enabled. Why would you not do the same in the > new? YouÂre not doing the same in new and old. In the old method you define start and stop order, yes, but you donÂt define which runlevels it should default start/stop in (notice the "-" in the chkconfig line). Also, the recommendation for fedora packaging says about Default-Start: Each Fedora SysV-style initscript which needs to start by default in any runlevel must include this line in the LSB Header, and it must match the list of runlevels defined for startup in the Chkconfig header. Only services which are really required for a vital system should define runlevels here. Ref: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#.23_Default-Start:_line The reason IÂm objecting is both that I think this is a bad default security wise (principle of least surprise -- it surprised me that a func dependency suddenly installed a network listening daemon that func didnÂt need), and also it forces me to add logic to work around this when deploying minions trough puppet. -jf _______________________________________________ Func-list mailing list Func-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/func-list
