On Thu, 15.07.10 10:39, Stephen John Smoogen (smooge@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > You are right. portrelease is not necessary anymore if socket activation > > is used for the repsective services. > > > > Does anyone know what other services (besides CUPS) currently use > > portreserve? Might be worth spending my time on patching those for > > socket actrivation, too, so that we can get rid of portreserve this > > way. One less daemon to start! > > I believe portrelease is in use because of an outstanding bug I have > from 2002 or so? The problem is that various RPC programs have a > tendency to grab low ports (ypbind being the one that showed up nearly > constantly for a month at the workplace) and cause CUPS (and various > other utilities) to not work in various ways. If the systemd will make > sure that ypbind, rpc.netstatd and other older generation programs do > not grab other programs those requirements would not be needed. Well, it can only make sure of that for daemons that actually allow systemd to bind the ports for it, i.e. support socket activation. I have the patch ready for CUPS. But what else would there be to patch? Which is why I was wondering what other daemons are there that use portreserve right now? i.e. what other daemons bind to ports in the range that ypbind and friends like to play games in? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
