On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 13:37, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 A couple of questions: 1) Does the above mean that every netscan will start up various services on systems? 2) Would those services haven been listening before? 3) What is a good example that people can look at so we aren't all hand-wavy in this discussion about couldas and such. If we have something that is the "way it should be" we can then measure against it. -- Stephen J Smoogen. "The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance." Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." -- Ian MacLaren -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
