On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 16:11 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 13.04.10 15:04, Seth Vidal (skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>>> What does that bug report to do with the firewall and the desktop live
>> having avahi running and active by default.
>> if various tools dep on the lib, then a system won't end up with avahi
>> installed and running by default. The above is something of a surprise to
>> many folks running servers.
>> the comment from JH is the admin/manager of kernel.org
who was a bit
>> frustrated by avahi running as a service.
> Right. And what does that have to do with the firewall of the desktop
> live cd?
> I mean, i am not opposed to introducing a seperate package for the avahi
> libs, but i wonder what that has to do with the firewall of the desktop
> live cd?
> And mentioning an admin's tale about a server is not really to the point is
Perhaps I misread the original comment - but it was the suggestion of
having avahi running by default.
Do you mean having that be the case from the livecd or from the package
If the former, then you're right it's a side issue. I thought the latter
was being discussed which is why I brought up that report.
I think both are being discussed somewhat. It'd be nice to do it
everywhere, so that the regular install does match somewhat the livecd
case, but as a fallback, just doing it on the livecd is less
contentious. I'd certainly like to see it on the livecd, and then I'd
also like to see us work toward having it on regular installs too, in a
way that will keep most parties happy.
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!