Bug 1302333

Summary: Requesting template for systemd preset requests
Product: [Community] Bugzilla Reporter: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh>
Component: Creating/Changing BugsAssignee: Matt Tyson 🤬 <mtyson>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: tools-bugs <tools-bugs>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 5.0CC: huiwang, jmcdonal, mtahir, mtyson, qgong, sgallagh
Target Milestone: 5.0   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-17 04:11:28 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1337534    

Description Stephen Gallagher 2016-01-27 14:08:43 UTC
In Fedora, we have moved all of the systemd presets (the system-wide configuration files that determines what installed services are permitted to start on boot by default) into the fedora-release package. We have guidelines for when packages may start by default at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices

When a package wishes to start by default, they are required to file a bug against the fedora-release component. We would like there to be a bug-filing template available that asks several questions explicitly of the requester to help determine if the request is acceptable as-is or needs to go to FESCo for a decision.

Could you please produce a bug-filing template (similar to the one provided for package reviews) for this purpose? It should ask the following required questions:


* Does the service require post-rpm-installation configuration in order to be useful (for example, does it need manual edits to a configuration file)?

* Does the service listen on a network socket for connections originating on a separate physical or virtual machine?

* Is the service non-persistent (i.e. run once at startup and exit)?

Comment 1 Stephen Gallagher 2016-01-27 16:13:45 UTC
Also one additional question:

* What is the exact name (or names) of the systemd unit files to be enabled?

Comment 2 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2016-01-27 23:36:12 UTC
e.g. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedora-review

Which comes from extensions/RedHat/template/en/default/bug/create/create-fedora-review.html.tmpl

Comment 3 Matt Tyson 🤬 2016-04-05 06:32:14 UTC
I need a little bit more information

For reference, If you look at the fedora review link in comment 2...

What would you like in the "Review Summary" text box?

Also, there's three other text strings.  You can either provide replacements for them, or, if they are not needed I can remove them.

> With this template, you can create a package review request according to the Package Review Process. 
> Help: Brief description of new package. Ex: Review Request: foogrokker - Universal parser library
> Help: Package information and more detailed description of function the new package performs.

Comment 4 Stephen Gallagher 2016-04-05 13:42:54 UTC
Review Summary: systemd presets request - <list of systemd units>

"With this template, you can request that one or more systemd unit files be enabled by default in Fedora."

Help: Description of units to enable. Ex: systemd presets request: foo.socket foo.service

(drop the second help, I think).


Remaining text:

* Does the service require post-rpm-installation configuration in order to be useful (for example, does it need manual edits to a configuration file)?

* Does the service listen on a network socket for connections originating on a separate physical or virtual machine?

* Is the service non-persistent (i.e. run once at startup and exit)?

* Is this request for all Fedora deliverables or only for some Editions (list them)?

Comment 5 Matt Tyson 🤬 2016-04-06 00:33:23 UTC
When this is in production the URL will be:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedora-systemd-request

Comment 6 Hui Wang 2016-04-11 06:41:02 UTC
Verified this issue in QE instance.
Version: rh-bugzilla-4.4.11050-4.el6.noarch
The result is PASS.

Comment 7 Stephen Gallagher 2016-04-11 12:06:00 UTC
This is marked as VERIFIED but not pushed to production. Is there a schedule for that?

Comment 8 Matt Tyson 🤬 2016-04-12 06:22:02 UTC
(In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #7)
> This is marked as VERIFIED but not pushed to production. Is there a schedule
> for that?

It should be put into production in the next two weeks.  Keep an eye out for an outage banner once this bug enters RELEASE_PENDING state.

Comment 9 Matt Tyson 🤬 2016-05-17 04:11:28 UTC
This change is now live. If there are any issues, do not reopen this bug.
Instead, you should create a new bug and reference this bug.