Bug#359098: runit-run: Default "getty"s not always welcome
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 04:15:33PM +0200, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Hi. > > > > Of course, from my point of view, The sysadmin should be > > > given the opportunity to refuse the automatic creation of > > > the services. Could it be possible to add the necessary > > > configuration in the install scripts? > > > > Hi Gilles, I can understand your concern, but I'm currently not sure how > > to solve this conflict. The vserver environment doesn't need the > > getties, sure, but they also don't hurt that much. OTOH a non-virtual > > system that installs runit-run, and by accident doesn't provide any > > getty service, is a real pain as there's no possibility to login locally > > to a console. Users might even think the system didn't boot up > > correctly. > > Couldn't you just provide an option to not install the getties, accompanied > by a strong warning, and possibly, make the user acknowledge the danger by > having him type something like "Do as I say!", as they do when one tries to > uninstall "essential" packages? Hmm, I'll see what I can do, need to think about it. Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#359098: runit-run: Default "getty"s not always welcome
Hi. > > Of course, from my point of view, The sysadmin should be > > given the opportunity to refuse the automatic creation of > > the services. Could it be possible to add the necessary > > configuration in the install scripts? > > Hi Gilles, I can understand your concern, but I'm currently not sure how > to solve this conflict. The vserver environment doesn't need the > getties, sure, but they also don't hurt that much. OTOH a non-virtual > system that installs runit-run, and by accident doesn't provide any > getty service, is a real pain as there's no possibility to login locally > to a console. Users might even think the system didn't boot up > correctly. > Couldn't you just provide an option to not install the getties, accompanied by a strong warning, and possibly, make the user acknowledge the danger by having him type something like "Do as I say!", as they do when one tries to uninstall "essential" packages? Best, Gilles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#359098: runit-run: Default "getty"s not always welcome
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 06:04:31PM +0200, Gilles wrote: > Just upgrading the package (to v.0.7.0), I was surprised that it installs by > default 5 getty services, whereas I need none. > > [Obviously, my wish is in contradiction with report #353673.] > > Indeed, I use runit in an enhanced "chroot" environment: vserver > (see http://www.13thfloor.at/vserver/project/), where it fits > particularly well. > But "getty" is unnecessary to access the "virtual" servers. > And now, by default, I have... > ... 10 useless processes, on each vserver. > [Some people run several dozens of them.] > > Of course, from my point of view, The sysadmin should be > given the opportunity to refuse the automatic creation of > the services. Could it be possible to add the necessary > configuration in the install scripts? Hi Gilles, I can understand your concern, but I'm currently not sure how to solve this conflict. The vserver environment doesn't need the getties, sure, but they also don't hurt that much. OTOH a non-virtual system that installs runit-run, and by accident doesn't provide any getty service, is a real pain as there's no possibility to login locally to a console. Users might even think the system didn't boot up correctly. Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#359098: runit-run: Default "getty"s not always welcome
Package: runit-run Severity: wishlist Hello. Just upgrading the package (to v.0.7.0), I was surprised that it installs by default 5 getty services, whereas I need none. [Obviously, my wish is in contradiction with report #353673.] Indeed, I use runit in an enhanced "chroot" environment: vserver (see http://www.13thfloor.at/vserver/project/), where it fits particularly well. But "getty" is unnecessary to access the "virtual" servers. And now, by default, I have... 712 ?Ss 0:00 runsv getty-1 714 ?Ss 0:00 runsv getty-2 716 ?Ss 0:00 runsv getty-3 718 ?Ss 0:00 runsv getty-4 720 ?Ss 0:00 runsv getty-5 15118 ?Ss 0:00 getty 38400 tty4 linux 15120 ?Ss 0:00 getty 38400 tty2 linux 15124 ?Ss 0:00 getty 38400 tty1 linux 15126 ?Ss 0:00 getty 38400 tty5 linux 15128 ?Ss 0:00 getty 38400 tty3 linux ... 10 useless processes, on each vserver. [Some people run several dozens of them.] Of course, from my point of view, The sysadmin should be given the opportunity to refuse the automatic creation of the services. Could it be possible to add the necessary configuration in the install scripts? Best, Gilles -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-vs2.1.0-rc5+g3 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
