On 02/27/2011 07:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:23:59 +
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to get the rationality behind why those services which
>> are permitted to be enabled by default as specific exceptions are
>> granted that exception.
> Well, I thin
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 02:03:26PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:13:44PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:21:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > No, but it does mean that what you're proposing would involve adding
> > > functionality to Anaco
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 11:53 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
> > Well, I think the rationale was "these are basic services that are
> > required to bring the machine up into a gui and allow a user to login
> > and be able to apply updates, etc"
> >
> > At least
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
> Well, I think the rationale was "these are basic services that are
> required to bring the machine up into a gui and allow a user to login
> and be able to apply updates, etc"
>
> At least that was my thought.
>
> I wonder now if we couldn't use the critic
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Larry Vaden writes:
>
>>>From a recent default install of F14:
>>
>> ps auxw | wc -l
>> 124
>
> How many of those are kernel threads?
I dunno but if you will suggest a mod to the CLI command I'll run it
and report back.
regards/va...@texo
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:13:44PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:21:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No, but it does mean that what you're proposing would involve adding
> > functionality to Anaconda. The current situation is that the services
> > that are started whe
Larry Vaden writes:
>>From a recent default install of F14:
>
> ps auxw | wc -l
> 124
How many of those are kernel threads?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
"And now for something completely different."
--
On 02/25/2011 03:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Heh, have we started getting bug reports about it not being minimal
> enough or it being too minimal yet?
Do you want them? ;-)
--
Ian Pilcher
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> If it includes sendmail its not minimal enough ;-)
>From a recent default install of F14:
ps auxw | wc -l
124
Several of the BSDish distros achieve 30-50 as a minimal install.
e.g., on RHEL.
IMHO some thought should be given to the sec
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 2/25/11 12:51 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
This was the same realization that
led to the removal of the labeled "minimal" install, too many people
just wanted to argue over the meaning of the term "minimal".
>>>
>>> ? There's sti
On 02/27/2011 01:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Ie, "If your package is not critical path, it should not start by
> default. If it is, it _may_ start by default"
+1
--
Ian Pilcher arequi
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:21:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 04:33:56PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:00:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:30:34PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > > The services that are st
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:23:59 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Is it possible to get the rationality behind why those services which
> are permitted to be enabled by default as specific exceptions are
> granted that exception.
Well, I think the rationale was "these are basic services that
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 04:33:56PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:00:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:30:34PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > The services that are started when the respective package is installed
> > > and the services that
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:00:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:30:34PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > The services that are started when the respective package is installed
> > and the services that are enabled by default by the Fedora installer do
> > not need to be
On 2/25/11 12:51 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
>>> This was the same realization that
>>> led to the removal of the labeled "minimal" install, too many people
>>> just wanted to argue over the meaning of the term "minimal".
>>
>> ? There's still a 'minimal' radio button in the installer at the package
>>
> > This was the same realization that
> > led to the removal of the labeled "minimal" install, too many people
> > just wanted to argue over the meaning of the term "minimal".
>
> ? There's still a 'minimal' radio button in the installer at the package
> set selection stage. I know, I just cli
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:22:25PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 09:46:08AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 06:32:44PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > There are no essential services, which means any proposal that contains
> > > the phrase "n
2011/2/25 Adam Williamson :
> On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 09:53 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> This was the same realization that
>> led to the removal of the labeled "minimal" install, too many people
>> just wanted to argue over the meaning of the term "minimal".
>
> ? There's still a 'minimal' radio b
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 09:53 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> This was the same realization that
> led to the removal of the labeled "minimal" install, too many people
> just wanted to argue over the meaning of the term "minimal".
? There's still a 'minimal' radio button in the installer at the pac
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:30:34PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> The services that are started when the respective package is installed
> and the services that are enabled by default by the Fedora installer do
> not need to be the same and are afaik currently not the same. There is
> imho a huge diffe
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:22:25PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Like Jesse said, my objection here is that using the word "essential"
> just results in us being doomed to argue over what "essential" means.
> A literal interpretation of "essential" means "start init and have it
> launch a get
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 09:46:08AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 06:32:44PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > There are no essential services, which means any proposal that contains
> > the phrase "non-essential services" is already unimplementable.
> >
> You've said thi
On 2/25/11 9:46 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> You've said this many times and it seems that you do it to be
> obstructionist. The constructive way to deal with this is to start making
> a list of what people really mean by "essential" and then propose alternate
> words to use.
>
> I think, by essen
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 06:32:44PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:59:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:04:26PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > And once you've got a default set for the default install, why not just
> > > do it at the p
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:45:35PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> No, but if that's your definition of "essential" then all we need is to
> launch init and have it give you a getty. chkconfigging gdm on would
> give you a graphical login, and you could probably even get a session. A
> bunch of
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 05:18:34PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:46:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > So we should default to init=/bin/sh and take it from there?
>
> Is it possible to start there and to get to a gdm login by only using
> the command "service start"[0]
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:46:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > For me essential services are the services that are required to start
> > other services. If there are no services required to boot Fedora, login
> > as root and star
On 24/02/11 15:44, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> Greetings.
>>
>> FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default
>> (ie, you install something and it's set to start automatically next
>> time you boot up).
>
> Honestly I think
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> For me essential services are the services that are required to start
> other services. If there are no services required to boot Fedora, login
> as root and start other services, then I do not see any point of
> requiring services to be
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 06:32:44PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:59:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:04:26PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > And once you've got a default set for the default install, why not just
> > > do it at the p
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:51:37PM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 01:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > There are no essential services, which means any proposal that contains
> > the phrase "non-essential services" is already unimplementable.
> >
>
> HID services (keyboard/mo
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:51:37PM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 01:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > There are no essential services, which means any proposal that contains
> > the phrase "non-essential services" is already unimplementable.
> >
>
> HID services (keyboard/mo
On 02/24/2011 01:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> There are no essential services, which means any proposal that contains
> the phrase "non-essential services" is already unimplementable.
>
HID services (keyboard/mouse) might be nice ... :-) :-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraprojec
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:59:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:04:26PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > And once you've got a default set for the default install, why not just
> > do it at the package level and ensure some level of consistency?
>
> Because by enabling
On 02/24/2011 05:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> that said, I do think it would make sense to offer some command to
> enable all modules that were originally enabled, to get a working system
> back if you broke it. Something in the sense of #630174.
Hum
You probably would need to implement som
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:42:54AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > "May" as in "Are allowed to". It's always going to be the package
> > maintainers call in the end - we're not going to mandate it.
>
> Okay; it's not worth going throug
On Thu, 24.02.11 09:06, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
> On 2/24/2011 8:14, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Some people have been asking us to extend the systemd unit file header
> > to include information about whether a service should be on or off by
> > default (Michal!),
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Garrett Holmstrom
wrote:
>
> So whether or not a given package will be enabled by default after I
> tell yum to install it depends on which spin, if any, that I initially
> installed my system with? Why should the initial package set that my
> system came up with
On 2/24/2011 8:14, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Some people have been asking us to extend the systemd unit file header
> to include information about whether a service should be on or off by
> default (Michal!), like chkconfig had it. But after thinking about this
> we came to the conclusion that th
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:04:26PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> And once you've got a default set for the default install, why not just
> do it at the package level and ensure some level of consistency?
Because by enabling lots of potential vulnerable services you make it a
PITA to use Fedora
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:32:43PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Right. I think the reasonable expectation here is that if you (as a
> user) don't want the service, don't install the package. If you (as a
The package is more than just the service. It will also include the
documentation and th
On 02/24/2011 04:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Fedora is intended to be a functional distribution, not merely a toolbox
> for SIGs to build functional distributions.
>
The project has already outgrown that purpose...
It's just taking several people some time to let go and realize that a
"Defau
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:58:25PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 03:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > "May" as in "Are allowed to". It's always going to be the package
> > maintainers call in the end - we're not going to mandate it.
> >
>
> Hum not following you..
>
> If u
On Thu, 24.02.11 15:04, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:44:19AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > Greetings.
> > >
> > > FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default
> >
On Thu, 24.02.11 09:44, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default
> > (ie, you install something and it's set to start automatically next
> > time yo
On 02/24/2011 03:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> "May" as in "Are allowed to". It's always going to be the package
> maintainers call in the end - we're not going to mandate it.
>
Hum not following you..
If ultimately packagers can override this then is this [1] being worked on?
I thought the wh
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> "May" as in "Are allowed to". It's always going to be the package
> maintainers call in the end - we're not going to mandate it.
Okay; it's not worth going through the details if you guys already
discussed and rejected it, we've lived fo
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:25:25AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We considered that option, but it's not just about the desktop install -
> > you need a default set for a default install,
>
> "Default install"? This is @base from anaco
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:44:19AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> > Greetings.
>> >
>> > FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default
>> > (ie, you install s
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:44:19AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default
> > (ie, you install something and it's set to start automatically next
> > time you bo
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default
> (ie, you install something and it's set to start automatically next
> time you boot up).
Honestly I think it'd be conceptually a lot simpler if all service
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 14:27 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I still have unupstreamed patches here which would allow us to start
> CUPS automatically when a local client needs it or when a printer is
> plugged in.
I think that's separate from the issue of whether the service is allowed
to star
On Thu, 24.02.11 09:29, Tim Waugh (twa...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:56 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Some questions:
> >
> > * Do you know of/maintain another service that should start by default?
> > Why?
>
> CUPS currently starts by default. The reason is that, even wh
On 02/23/2011 06:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default
> (ie, you install something and it's set to start automatically next
> time you boot up).
>
> We have a draft at:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Default
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:56 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Some questions:
>
> * Do you know of/maintain another service that should start by default?
> Why?
CUPS currently starts by default. The reason is that, even when
printing over the network as a client, this service is required to be
run
56 matches
Mail list logo
