On 02/27/2011 07:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:23:59 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"<johannbg(a)gmail.com> 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 are
required to bring the machine up into a gui and allow a user to login
and be able to apply updates, etc"
We should not standardize our policy around "Desktop Installs" our
community is broader then any ( single ) *DE
At least that was my thought.
I wonder now if we couldn't use the critical path setup to define
these.
Ie, "If your package is not critical path, it should not start by
default. If it is, it _may_ start by default"
Interesting approach but I agree whole heartedly with Colin Walters take
on this..
"Honestly I think it'd be conceptually a lot simpler if all services
didn't start on RPM installation, period. Specific ones that we want
enabled by default in a desktop install could simply be turned on in
the kickstart file."
JBG