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
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/DefaultServices
With a policy and list of exceptions.
We wo
57 matches
Mail list logo
