[ovirt-devel] Fwd: Re: Mass bug: packages should not auto-enable systemd units

[Douglas Schilling Landgraf]

On 04/30/2014 05:32 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 07:57:32PM +0200, Vinzenz Feenstra wrote:
>>
>> Due to some confusion around how alternatives worked, I screwed up the
>> list of packages here.  I've updated it below.  I'll give it a few
>> more days before filing the actual bugs.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto at mit.edu> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone-
>>>
>>> This is a notice in accordance with the mass bug filing procedure.
>>>
>>> A number of packages install systemd units and enable them
>>> automatically.  They should not.  Please update these packages to use the
>>> macroized scriptlet
>>> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd).
>>>
>>> If your package has an exception from FESCo permitting it to enable
>>> itself, please make sure that the service in question is listed in the
>>> appropriate preset file.
>>>
>>> There is a general exception described here:
>>>
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Starting_services_by_default
>>>
>>> If your package falls under the general exception, then it is possible
>>> that no change is required.  Nevertheless, if you are relying on the
>>> exception, please make sure that your rpm scripts are sensible.  The
>>> exception is:
>>>
>>> In addition, any service which does not remain persistent on the
>>> system (aka, it "runs once then goes away"), does not listen to
>>> incoming connections during initialization, and does not require
>>> configuration to be functional may be enabled by default (but is not
>>> required to do so). An example of "runs once then goes away" service
>>> is iptables.
>>>
>>> Given that this issue can affect Fedora 20 users who install your
>>> package as a dependency, these bugs should be fixed in Fedora 20 and
>>> Rawhide.
>>>
>>> The tracker bug is here:
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090684
>>>
>>> I created it early because three of the bugs are pre-existing.  Next
>>> week, I'll file bugs against the packages below.  If you fix your
>>> package in the mean time, please let me know.
>>>
>>> After three weeks, provenpackagers may step in and fix these issues.
>>>
>
> Vinzenz, I suppose that your main point is this part of the list
>
>> vdsm
>
> Douglas/Yaniv - can infra take care of this?
>
Sure, I noticed we got a bug (1094936) report from it as well

-- 
Cheers
Douglas