rpcbind is enabled by default, and gnome-boxes requires it
Simo Sorce
simo at redhat.com
Tue Apr 15 16:25:43 UTC 2014
On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 09:16 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Simo Sorce <simo at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 08:47 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >> I don't know whether this should be a gnome-boxes bug, an rpcbind bug,
> >> or a FESCo ticket, or something else, so I'm asking here.
> >>
> >> rpcbind enables itself by default. This page says that it has a
> >> specific exception, so it's okay:
> >>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Starting_services_by_default
> >>
> >> I assume that the exception comes from the idea that server systems
> >> probably want it on if they've installed it. That may make sense in
> >> some contexts.
> >>
> >> Alas, libvirt-daemon-kvm requires libvirt-daemon-driver-storage, which
> >> requires nfs-utils, and nfs-utils requires rpcbind.
> >>
> >> gnome-boxes, in turn, requires libvirt-daemon-kvm, resulting in this:
> >>
> >> tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:111 0.0.0.0:*
> >> LISTEN 774/rpcbind
> >> tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:20048 0.0.0.0:*
> >> LISTEN 887/rpc.mountd
> >> tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:875 0.0.0.0:*
> >> LISTEN 930/rpc.rquotad
> >>
> >> *on my laptop*
> >>
> >> IMO this is bad. Should I file a FESCo ticket asking to revoke the
> >> rpcbind and nfs-utils exceptions? Should I file a bug against
> >> libvirt?
> >
> > Shouldn't rpcbind be simply a dependency for
> > nfs-server.service/nfs-secure-server.service and be started only if the
> > nfs server is started ?
> >
>
> rpcbind has this script:
>
> postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh):
> if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then
> # Initial installation
> /bin/systemctl enable rpcbind.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
> fi
>
> nfs-utils has this script (excerpted):
>
> postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh):
> if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then
> # Package install,
> /bin/systemctl enable nfs.target >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
> /bin/systemctl enable nfs-lock.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
> /bin/systemctl start nfs-lock.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
>
> nfs-utils is also pulled in by libvirt.
>
> Why is nfs special enough to deserve this kind of automatic
> enablement? I would argue that nfs requires so much manual
> configuration in order to do anything useful that requiring admins to
> turn it on would be just fine.
Probably remnants of a past where we did not have dependencies on sysv.
I do not think these rules make sense anymore.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
More information about the devel
mailing list