[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: init script, installed but not activated

Quoting Nick Phillips (2015-10-07 22:59:23)
> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 19:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: 
> > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 22:35:38 +0200, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
> > wrote:
> > >If your package does not work unconfigured, a better alternative is to
> > >check for the existence of a config file.
> > 
> > This, however, prevents you from delivering an all-comments default
> > config file in the right place, which makes configuring the package
> > harder and non-intuitive.
> > 
> > Checking for a config file with at least one non-comment line in the
> > systemd-unit is ugly.
> I don't think we have a good, standard, story for how installation,
> configuration and enabling of packages that can be used to provide
> services *should* work.
> Personally, I'd prefer that packages get a default configuration and
> services are never enabled on install. However, I get that some/many
> people would prefer that debconf ask them enough questions to configure
> a package and that the service be enabled by the end of the install.
> There might well also be different classes of service with different
> levels of config requirements - if you install an RPC portmapper, it's
> more likely to be able to DTRT if it tries to configure and enable than,
> say, mailscanner. In the middle are services that can ask a few simple
> debconf questions and then have a good chance of doing the right thing.
> Some services might also be potentially harmful if enabled by the
> install process - DHCP servers being a good example.
> I think this is something that we should have covered by policy, so a
> user knows what to expect when installing a package (e.g. so they know
> that they don't need to disconnect the machine from their corporate
> network before installing isc-dhcp-server).
> It certainly seems to me that a standard default is needed, and that
> system-wide configuration of this might be desirable.
> Am I missing something? Thoughts?

Debian daemons should by default start - then those not wanting them to 
start can suppress that.  The opposite requires far more custom work for 
those who do want daemons to start than it does to suppress startup.

I believe what you are missing is policy.d: 

How it translates to systemd I don't know, however.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: