On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:25:25AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Whatever you get if you do an install from something other than the desktop spin. > > 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. Right. I think the reasonable expectation here is that if you (as a user) don't want the service, don't install the package. If you (as a SIG) don't want the service but do want the package, blacklist it somehow. > 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. "May" as in "Are allowed to". It's always going to be the package maintainers call in the end - we're not going to mandate it. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
