On 02/27/2011 07:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:23:59 +0000 > "JÃhann B. GuÃmundsson"<johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Is it possible to get the rationality behind why those services which >> are permitted to be enabled by default as specific exceptions are >> granted that exception. > Well, I think the rationale was "these are basic services that are > required to bring the machine up into a gui and allow a user to login > and be able to apply updates, etc" We should not standardize our policy around "Desktop Installs" our community is broader then any ( single ) *DE > At least that was my thought. > > I wonder now if we couldn't use the critical path setup to define > these. > > Ie, "If your package is not critical path, it should not start by > default. If it is, it _may_ start by default" Interesting approach but I agree whole heartedly with Colin Walters take on this.. "Honestly I think it'd be conceptually a lot simpler if all services didn't start on RPM installation, period. Specific ones that we want enabled by default in a desktop install could simply be turned on in the kickstart file." JBG -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
