1. install a mga1 2. install something that requires apache (like urpmi-proxy) (or apache itself) 3. service httpd is not started. afaik apache has no maintainer, so if everyone agrees i'd do an update for mga1 that starts httpd after installing...
CC: (none) => alien, guillomovitch
apache dmorgan but dmorgan is maybe very busy :)
CC: (none) => dmorganec
well, he may be :-) ; but if he agrees with me, i can try to fix this myself
That's expected behaviour: no automatic start of any service after package automatically, you're supposed to configure it first. What is expected, tough, is automatic activation of the service after installation, to ensure starting at boot time. This behaviour may be broken since switch to native systemd control, but that's not apache-specific.
(In reply to comment #3) > That's expected behaviour: no automatic start of any service after package > automatically, you're supposed to configure it first. > > What is expected, tough, is automatic activation of the service after > installation, to ensure starting at boot time. This behaviour may be broken > since switch to native systemd control, but that's not apache-specific. this is for mageia1, so systemd is not an issue here. Is this a policy we want to continue? no service at all is started after installation? or only the services that are remotely accessible by default? so in this case, only adding a README.urpmi will "solve" this issue?
@ AL13N No one replied to your question. Do you want to discuss this on the dev ml or are you willing to add that README.urpmi?
CC: (none) => marja11
(In reply to comment #5) > @ AL13N > > No one replied to your question. ;_; story of my life :-) > Do you want to discuss this on the dev ml or are you willing to add that > README.urpmi? if that's the policy, then that's the policy, i think it's been discussed. the README.urpmi is meant for urpmi-proxy (ie: that it's dependant on apache and that you should make sure it's started or urpmi-proxy will not work...), i'll have to remember and add that...
(In reply to comment #6) > > if that's the policy, then that's the policy, i think it's been discussed. > > the README.urpmi is meant for urpmi-proxy (ie: that it's dependant on apache > and that you should make sure it's started or urpmi-proxy will not work...), > i'll have to remember and add that... Is it OK then, to put urpmi-proxy in the RPM Package: field, and to assign this bug to you?
nah, just close it, i've added README.urpmi to urpmi-proxy just now :-)
(In reply to comment #8) > nah, just close it, i've added README.urpmi to urpmi-proxy just now :-) Wow, you're fast! :D Closing
Status: NEW => RESOLVEDResolution: (none) => INVALID