On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 16:55 +0300, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 14:27 +0300, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > >> Peter Vrabec wrote: > >> > >>>> I'd say that since sysklogd is erased, rsylogd should be automatically > >>>> enabled and started. Yes, I know the packaging recommendations, but I > >>>> think that in this case an exception should be accepted. > >>>> > >>> I agree, but I don't know any nice and secure way we can do it. > >>> > >> shipping an /etc/init.d/rsyslog with default options set to enabled + > >> service rsyslog start in %post is not OK ? > >> > > > > Starting a service in %post is not in at all okay. It can cause all > > sorts of havoc when installing systems, creating live images, init'ing > > chroots for building in, ... > > > Generally speaking, yes. But in this case we are speaking about > sysklogd's replacement. And sysklogd IS (was..) already enabled by default. Sure, having the options set to enabled and doing chkconfig --add is fine. Actually _starting_ the service when it's installed isn't. Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
