Default services enabled

[Reindl Harald]

Am 22.08.2011 23:01, schrieb Tom Callaway:
> On 08/22/2011 04:41 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> I'd vote for simply making this an implementation detail of the
>> package. I.e. if a package gets the permission to enable its service by
>> default it's up to it whether it wants to be started at boot or via
>> socket actviation of via any other kind of activation.
> 
> Sure, assuming that FESCo agrees that packages starting by default is 
> the same as socket-enabled start on-demand.

this argumentation is strange and makes no sense

it is uninteresting what is starting per default
the USER decides what servcies he needs for whatever the machine should do

if you setup a nameserver as example it is useless taht avahi maybe
allowed to started as default and named not and because taht named
msut not have socket-activation

if you have a filserver with samba/netatalk NONE auf the current default-servcies
nor named nor avahi nor httpd or anything else is relevant for this machine

so explain me why i should this logic not call stupid?

some of the people taht making decisions about default-services should
start to understand that they are not really in the position to decide
for users waht servcies on what machines are important or not and the
only reason for such decisions have to be waht is the technical best
solution in a maximum of cases without damage user expierience

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110822/5875f062/attachment.bin