Default services enabled

[Bill Nottingham]

Tom Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: 
> On 08/22/2011 01:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that we kicked this up to FESCo and they decided to treat
> > them the same (although the latter may not have come to a formal vote and
> > only been discussed during their IRC meetings on the overall subject.) Going
> > back to the quote in this message, though, that was a result of discussions
> > with Lennart rather than FESCo.
> 
> Sure. I just want FESCo to either decide that socket-activated services 
> == the same as default enabled services, or that there is some sort of 
> separate whitelisting for socket-activated services.

Thinking about this some more, I don't see why there should be a huge
distinction here.

A socket-activated service is much the same as a non-socket-activated
service, in that installing the unit won't activate the service unless
something calls for it, or the admin/rpm scripts run 'systemctl enable'. So
I don't think there needs to be any blanket prohibition on socket
activation; they would be packaged like service files, and would have
the same guidelines as to whether they're enabled in %post or not.

Note that if you have both a .socket and a .service file in your package,
you'd want to have Also=<the other one> in your files, such that enabling
or disabling one would enable/disable the other as well. This makes it
much clearer from the administrator's point of view, IMO.

Bill