On Mon, 06.12.10 12:30, Bill Nottingham (notting@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > MichaÅ Piotrowski (mkkp4x4@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > >> If systemd will allow us to do that, sure. > > > > > > What's the point here? For example, this doesn't cut down on the number > > > of listening ports, obviously, nor on the requirements for root passwords > > > and potential root login. And if it's started in parallel, I doubt it's a > > > huge drain on resources. > > > > "For a fast and efficient boot-up two things are crucial: > > > > * To start less. > > * And to start more in parallel." > > > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html > > > > IMO "start less" philosophy is a good thing. > > Yes. However, I'm leery of adding too many drastic changes that don't have > upstream buy-in yet. What's upstream openssh's opinion on socket activation? There's no need to patch ssh. It can do inetd-style socket activation just fine, and has been supporting that upstream since basically its inception. From that I would deduce that upstream is fine with it. systemd supports inetd-style activation too just fine. MacOS X has been installing sshd by default with socket activation enabled, and if they can do that I think we can do that on Fedora, too. (There are cases where socket-activated ssh is not useful, and you want the real-deal with sshd listening itself, but that shouldn't stop us from installing sshd socket-activated by default, since it is easy to switch back to the traditional way.) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
