On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 09:46:08AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 06:32:44PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > There are no essential services, which means any proposal that contains > > the phrase "non-essential services" is already unimplementable. > > > You've said this many times and it seems that you do it to be > obstructionist. The constructive way to deal with this is to start making > a list of what people really mean by "essential" and then propose alternate > words to use. Like Jesse said, my objection here is that using the word "essential" just results in us being doomed to argue over what "essential" means. A literal interpretation of "essential" means "start init and have it launch a getty". I don't think anyone's advocating that that be the outcome of a vanilla Fedora install. An alternative would be "Essential for a traditional UNIX experience", which would seem to preclude dbus. I don't think that's a rational outcome either. So we end up with "Essential for providing an experience consistent with what we feel a vanilla Fedora install should provide", which means you haven't actually defined "essential" at all. So don't say "essential". Say what you mean. > I think, by essential, some people mean: > > start the bare minimum so I don't have to start any additional services to: > > ... I don't want anything but init and a shell [*] > ... log into a getty > ... log in over the network > ... log into a desktop > ... do any client-side operations That's my point. If people have different interpretations of "essential" then any policy using the word "essential" is meaningless. You need to define "essential" - and if you're doing that then you don't need to use the word in the first place. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
