On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 09:16 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 08:47 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > >> I don't know whether this should be a gnome-boxes bug, an rpcbind bug, > >> or a FESCo ticket, or something else, so I'm asking here. > >> > >> rpcbind enables itself by default. This page says that it has a > >> specific exception, so it's okay: > >> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Starting_services_by_default > >> > >> I assume that the exception comes from the idea that server systems > >> probably want it on if they've installed it. That may make sense in > >> some contexts. > >> > >> Alas, libvirt-daemon-kvm requires libvirt-daemon-driver-storage, which > >> requires nfs-utils, and nfs-utils requires rpcbind. > >> > >> gnome-boxes, in turn, requires libvirt-daemon-kvm, resulting in this: > >> > >> tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:111 0.0.0.0:* > >> LISTEN 774/rpcbind > >> tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:20048 0.0.0.0:* > >> LISTEN 887/rpc.mountd > >> tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:875 0.0.0.0:* > >> LISTEN 930/rpc.rquotad > >> > >> *on my laptop* > >> > >> IMO this is bad. Should I file a FESCo ticket asking to revoke the > >> rpcbind and nfs-utils exceptions? Should I file a bug against > >> libvirt? > > > > Shouldn't rpcbind be simply a dependency for > > nfs-server.service/nfs-secure-server.service and be started only if the > > nfs server is started ? > > > > rpcbind has this script: > > postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): > if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then > # Initial installation > /bin/systemctl enable rpcbind.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : > fi > > nfs-utils has this script (excerpted): > > postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): > if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then > # Package install, > /bin/systemctl enable nfs.target >/dev/null 2>&1 || : > /bin/systemctl enable nfs-lock.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : > /bin/systemctl start nfs-lock.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : > > nfs-utils is also pulled in by libvirt. > > Why is nfs special enough to deserve this kind of automatic > enablement? I would argue that nfs requires so much manual > configuration in order to do anything useful that requiring admins to > turn it on would be just fine. Probably remnants of a past where we did not have dependencies on sysv. I do not think these rules make sense anymore. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct