Am 22.08.2011 23:01, schrieb Tom Callaway: > On 08/22/2011 04:41 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> 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. > > Sure, assuming that FESCo agrees that packages starting by default is > the same as socket-enabled start on-demand. this argumentation is strange and makes no sense it is uninteresting what is starting per default the USER decides what servcies he needs for whatever the machine should do if you setup a nameserver as example it is useless taht avahi maybe allowed to started as default and named not and because taht named msut not have socket-activation if you have a filserver with samba/netatalk NONE auf the current default-servcies nor named nor avahi nor httpd or anything else is relevant for this machine so explain me why i should this logic not call stupid? some of the people taht making decisions about default-services should start to understand that they are not really in the position to decide for users waht servcies on what machines are important or not and the only reason for such decisions have to be waht is the technical best solution in a maximum of cases without damage user expierience
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
