On Mon, 22.08.11 15:09, Tom Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On 08/22/2011 01:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that we kicked this up to FESCo and they decided to treat > > them the same (although the latter may not have come to a formal vote and > > only been discussed during their IRC meetings on the overall subject.) Going > > back to the quote in this message, though, that was a result of discussions > > with Lennart rather than FESCo. > > Sure. I just want FESCo to either decide that socket-activated services > == the same as default enabled services, or that there is some sort of > separate whitelisting for socket-activated services. I'd vote for simply making this an implementation detail of the package. I.e. if a package gets the permission to enable its service by default it's up to it whether it wants to be started at boot or via socket actviation of via any other kind of activation. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
