Re: system-config-securitylevel and named services

[James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Would it make better sense to stuff this into firstboot to shorten the
number of installer screens?  I'm not sure what the rule is in terms of
what goes into anaconda versus what goes into firstboot.  Should
anaconda be concerned *only* with packages, while firstboot deals
strictly with post-install configuration (adding users, firewall, clock,
addition package sources (yum, up2date)?  Might be the case that this is
a larger issue to be discussed at a later date.  

-jlaska 

On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 05:35 -0400, Paul Nasrat wrote:
> There are quite a few requests for service by name/service description for
> s-c-securitylevel:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=128541
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124161
> 
> There is also this related thread here:
> 
> https://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2004-July/msg00551.html
> 
> I thought I'd throw a couple of thoughts up for discussion.
> 
> Earlier anaconda would pass a service name + :tcp to lokkit, I'm reluctant to add that back for s-c-securitylevel as it's not quite correct.  
> 
> Would an add/remove rather than textbox for additional services make better
> sense? In which case should we have a predefined list of more well known
> services, with addition of custom ports (possibly with descriptive text or
> just showing both port and service name from /etc/services).
> 
> I wonder if we will want to have better "service definition" for service publishing via howl.
> 
> Paul
> 



-- 
Fedora-config-list mailing list
Fedora-config-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-config-list