sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Jeremy Kolb <jkolb AT brandeis.edu>
- To: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:25:43 -0500
First of all, please file bugs, complaining to the mailing list (while
it can get some attention for a short period of time) doesnt leave a
permanent record of what needs to be done and requests are often dropped.
My bad.
Second, what sorcery version? This is not only important for the team
to fix but for what users will be effected. If this is only a problem
with devel sorcery (as i suspect it would be as we havent touched the
code in test or stable in 2 major releases) then I would recommend you
indicate that as it would otherwise be assumed that this effects everyone,
which is not the case.
Yes it is devel sorcery with the test grimoire. I figured that it would be an issue with the spell itself and not sorcery.
Also, remember devel sorcery is devel sorcery and if you cant stand to
have your box break from time to time, use test or stable, thats what
they're there for, we have devel to bring up these problems before the
rest of the userbase runs into them :-)
Third, I would hardly say the defaults are "evil and bad", I would say
enabling every service out of the box, and having your box hacked is
evil and bad. Cant imagine any other distros that do things like that.
I would say defaulting to not installing services and not enabling them
is safe and conservative.
It defaulted to not installing mountall, smgl-misc, devices and so on, things that are critical to any box, not just any old init scripts. That's why I was concerned as anyone who didn't know better would have gone with the default, rebooted and realized that their system wouldn't boot correctly.
Jeremy
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Andrew, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Seth Alan Woolley, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Andrew, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Seth Alan Woolley, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Eric Schabell, 12/15/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Seth Alan Woolley, 12/15/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Arwed von Merkatz, 12/15/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Eric Sandall, 12/15/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Eric Schabell, 12/15/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Seth Alan Woolley, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Jeremy Kolb, 12/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Eric Sandall, 12/15/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Andrew, 12/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Jeremy Kolb, 12/14/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.