Default services enabled

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 13:37, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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

A couple of questions:

1) Does the above mean that every netscan will start up various
services on systems?
2) Would those services haven been listening before?
3) What is a good example that people can look at so we aren't all
hand-wavy in this discussion about couldas and such. If we have
something that is the "way it should be" we can then measure against
it.





-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren