On Mon, 06.12.10 12:30, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) said:
> > >> If systemd will allow us to do that, sure.
> > >
> > > What's the point here? For example, this doesn't cut down on the number
> > > of listening ports, obviously, nor on the requirements for root passwords
> > > and potential root login. And if it's started in parallel, I doubt it's a
> > > huge drain on resources.
> >
> > "For a fast and efficient boot-up two things are crucial:
> >
> > * To start less.
> > * And to start more in parallel."
> >
> > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
> >
> > IMO "start less" philosophy is a good thing.
>
> Yes. However, I'm leery of adding too many drastic changes that don't have
> upstream buy-in yet. What's upstream openssh's opinion on socket activation?
There's no need to patch ssh. It can do inetd-style socket activation
just fine, and has been supporting that upstream since basically its
inception. From that I would deduce that upstream is fine with
it. systemd supports inetd-style activation too just fine. MacOS X has
been installing sshd by default with socket activation enabled, and if
they can do that I think we can do that on Fedora, too.
(There are cases where socket-activated ssh is not useful, and you want
the real-deal with sshd listening itself, but that shouldn't stop us
from installing sshd socket-activated by default, since it is easy to
switch back to the traditional way.)
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
