On Thu, 18.08.11 12:33, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:

> 
> Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said: 
> > > Oh, I just noticed this:
> > > 
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines:Systemd#Socket_activation
> > > "Since Fedora currently doesn't want any services to do on-demand
> > > loading, all socket activated services must autostart."
> > 
> > Uh, oh. I think CUPS is definitely something we should lazily socket
> > activate instead of run it unconditionally.
> > 
> > Spot, Bill, what's the reason for this wording in the guidelines? As
> > CUPS is something we really should start only when needed, why do we
> > have this wording in the guidelines? Can we relax this?
> 
> I'm trying to remember. Perhaps it stemmed from the side consequence of
> needing to know if a particular service had a socket entry, and therefore
> you needed to disable both to disable a service? (I do recall there being
> issues with socket-activated NetworkManager for reasons along these
> lines.)

Well, but disabling and enabling doesn't have to list 1:1 the same
units. The disabling-on-uninstall should always disable all units we
installed while the enabling-on-install should only enable the socket
and path units.

> For something like cups, would this impose a significant delay in things
> such as the GTK or QT print dialog, if opening that dialog causes the
> cups daemon to then start?

Unlikely. CUPS is not that slow. I mean, if the dialog takes a second or
so this would still be completely fine, but in real life CUPS starts
much faster. On my machine it is very hard to see any difference at all
if I run "lpq" on a shell when CUPS is started and when it is not. So, I
don't think this should be any issue at all.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to