Tom Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > 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. Thinking about this some more, I don't see why there should be a huge distinction here. A socket-activated service is much the same as a non-socket-activated service, in that installing the unit won't activate the service unless something calls for it, or the admin/rpm scripts run 'systemctl enable'. So I don't think there needs to be any blanket prohibition on socket activation; they would be packaged like service files, and would have the same guidelines as to whether they're enabled in %post or not. Note that if you have both a .socket and a .service file in your package, you'd want to have Also=<the other one> in your files, such that enabling or disabling one would enable/disable the other as well. This makes it much clearer from the administrator's point of view, IMO. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
