[oe] [PATCH][meta-oe] samba: disable services for sysvinit

[Martin Jansa]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 04:35:11PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On 05.03.2015 02:26, wenzong fan wrote:
> > On 03/04/2015 07:02 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> >> On 04.03.2015 10:43, wenzong fan wrote:
> >>> On 03/04/2015 05:12 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> >>>> Dear Wenzong Fan,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 04.03.2015 07:18, wenzong.fan at windriver.com wrote:
> >>>>> From: Wenzong Fan <wenzong.fan at windriver.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The smb, nmb, winbind services have been disabled for systemd system
> >>>>> by default, disable them for sysvinit as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> why would anybody install these services without the desire for using
> >>>> them? Did the patch disabling them for systemd get merged by mistake? I
> >>>> remember Paul objecting to it.
> >>>
> >>> The samba is not a common service that required by system, especially in
> >>> some security environment, it should be configured correctly first -
> >>> This is why I incline to disable it by default.
> >>
> >> This doesn't convince me, as the line you're drawing between samba and
> >> other services seems to be chosen arbitrarily.
> >>
> >> "git grep INITSCRIPT_PARAMS.*disable" shows no results in both
> >> openembedded-core and meta-openembedded (dizzy). So samba will be the
> >> first and only service that's disabled by default and requires manual
> >> intervention by the user? Why don't you ship a safe configuration
> >> instead?
> >>
> >> As Paul stated, the distro is responsible for correct configuration.
> >> IMHO there's no reason to deviate from common behaviour just because
> >> samba seems to be less safe than any other network service in your view.
> >>
> > 
> > Ok, thanks for your advises, I agree with you.
> > 
> > Please maintainer ignore my patch.
> > 
> >>> Yes, it did - this may give me some hints that it should be disabled ...
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I don't understand what you're referring to here.
> > 
> > Sorry for the confusion, it answered you second question about if "the
> > patch disabling them for systemd get merged by mistake?".
> > 
> > Yes, the patch for systemd has been merged - It gives me hint that it's
> > a proper behavior for samba, but looks it isn't ...
> > 
> > Please refer to the commit: 20a624928c030fa13d8b7d45b4f4d7e1ac624f60
> > 
> > It should be reverted now!
> 
> You applied this patch to jansa/master. Would you mind reverting
> 20a624928c030fa13d8b7d45b4f4d7e1ac624f60 instead, as discussed in this
> thread?

It was applied there before this discussion started and I wasn't planing
to merge it before seeing some conclusion from this.

But you're right, I've moved it to jansa/master-next-unresolved-review
branch to make it more obvious and I've added revert of 20a624 to
master-next.

Thanks,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20150330/19be284d/attachment-0002.sig>