Upcoming transition of FC3

[Jesse Keating]

On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 15:38 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> I thought it was just a change to the yum package or something.
> 
> If it is a separate package, then I'm cool with it being enabled by
> default.  In that case, I would have to install the package, so it
> wouldn't matter what the default it.  (But, having said that, see
> below (end of message) for a counter argument.)

Well, if it was included w/ Core, it would be most likely part of the
same package that supplied the extras repo files and the core repo
files.  Given that things like Extras are enabled by default, we should
enable ours as well, just not the updates-testing.

[..snip..]

> Well, the Red Hat line since RHL 8 is "install all services disabled" rather
> than the line before that which was "install all services enabled" and doing
> so cut down almost completely on the number of worms being spread around
> the net for RHL machines.  (Remember the worm outbreak with RHL 6 and 7
> machines because all the services where enabled at installation?)
> 
> I think that this is the correct philosophy, and I think it should extend
> to things like repositories.  Just as if I install sendmail or apache
> they are disabled by default, I'd expect my repository to be disabled by
> default when I install it.  Doing so would mean more consistency of
> installation behaviour IMHO.
> 
> Your opinion may differ, and I respect that.

WRT Red Hat Linux, this is indeed the correct philosophy.  This is why
our service is an opt-in rather than opt-out for RHL.  However Fedora
doesn't have exactly the same goals or philosophy that RHL did.  For
that reason, I think we should fall more inline with the feel and
philosophy of Fedora when dealing w/ Fedora releases.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating