Fedora.next: I would like working configurations
sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Jan 27 19:01:32 UTC 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 01/27/2014 01:50 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 19:31:58 +0100, "Robert M. Albrecht"
> <lists at romal.de> wrote:
>> I think this is a real problem. The missing working
>> default-configs are a real hassle for replacing small servers in
>> Windows-shops with Linux as the non-expert-Linux-admin has an
>> enormous entry-barrier to get some minumum working configuration
>> from which he can start.
> You seem to be conflating two things. One is reasonable default
> configuration and the other is turning on services by default. I
> think the first is reasonable, but that the second is a bad idea.
He's not suggesting turning services on by default just by installing
pacakges (I don't think). I think his request here is similar to our
Fedora Server Roles idea where there are special "packages" (possibly
meta-packages) that are separate from the simple installed bits. So
you might have the server-role-dhcp package that 'Requires: dhcp' but
also provides either a default (and reasonably-secure) configuration
or some mechanism to interactively configure and deploy a DHCP server.
So if someone installed the 'dhcp' package on its own, this would not
autostart it. However, if someone deployed the DHCP Server role, that
should be considered a sufficiently intentional action to start it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the devel