On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:44:19AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Greetings. >> > >> > FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default >> > (ie, you install something and it's set to start automatically next >> > time you boot up). >> >> Honestly I think it'd be conceptually a lot simpler if all services >> didn't start on RPM installation, period. ÂSpecific ones that we want >> enabled by default in a desktop install could simply be turned on in >> the kickstart file. > > We considered that option, but it's not just about the desktop install - > you need a default set for a default install, "Default install"? This is @base from anaconda or something? > or the entire world is > going to set fire to you because cron isn't there by default any more. True, in this design just running through the RPM path isn't going to give you what it did before. > And once you've got a default set for the default install, why not just > do it at the package level and ensure some level of consistency? Well...until one product wants a "service" enabled and another doesn't. I guess in the "whitelist" design the latter just has to "chkconfig foo off" in a kickstart. I think this is already the case with openssh-server. Anyways if we end up with just a documented list that's probably OK. But it has tradeoffs - for example, it just says these services *may* be enabled, not that they will. So for someone writing a kickstart file, you pretty much have to "chkconfig foo on" *anyways*, since you have no guarantee that they actually *are* enabled in a specific Fedora release. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
