On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:50:11AM -0500, Greg Swift wrote:
>
> I am not saying it is required to be compliant, I'm saying that it is
> syntactically correct. I may be wrong, but I hold to what I say. In
> the old chkconfig method you defined start and stop order, and orders
> it should be on in when enabled. Why would you not do the same in the
> new?
You´re not doing the same in new and old. In the old method you define
start and stop order, yes, but you don´t define which runlevels it should
default start/stop in (notice the "-" in the chkconfig line).
Also, the recommendation for fedora packaging says about Default-Start:
Each Fedora SysV-style initscript which needs to start by default in any
runlevel must include this line in the LSB Header, and it must match the
list of runlevels defined for startup in the Chkconfig header. Only
services which are really required for a vital system should define
runlevels here.
Ref:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#.23_Default-Start:_line
The reason I´m objecting is both that I think this is a bad default
security wise (principle of least surprise -- it surprised me that a
func dependency suddenly installed a network listening daemon that
func didn´t need), and also it forces me to add logic to work around
this when deploying minions trough puppet.
-jf
_______________________________________________
Func-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/func-list
