|Summary:||error log spam at startup|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Joe Orton <jorton>|
|Component:||mod_dnssd||Assignee:||Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2009-07-14 15:25:15 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Joe Orton 2008-04-21 09:50:08 UTC
This error is logged to error_log at startup: [Mon Apr 21 10:30:06 2008] [error] avahi_client_new() failed: Access denied for a clean Raw Hide install; SELinux enabled by default.
Comment 1 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2008-04-21 15:32:49 UTC
Is the allow_httpd_dbus_avahi SELinux boolean enabled?
Comment 2 Joe Orton 2008-04-21 19:48:54 UTC
I'm using a completely default install, and have: [root@radish ~]# getsebool -a | grep avahi allow_httpd_dbus_avahi --> off The module should not be enabled by default (i.e. with "DNSSDEnable on") if the SELinux policy necessary to make it work is not also enabled by default.
Comment 3 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2008-04-21 22:21:53 UTC
I'm having trouble understanding why someone would want to have the package installed, but the module disabled.
Comment 4 Joe Orton 2008-05-13 08:17:53 UTC
Either: 1) the module should work correctly out of the box, i.e. that SELinux boolean is enabled by default, not disabled. 2) the module should not spam the error_log with obscure and meaningless errors out of the box when installed.
Comment 5 Bug Zapper 2008-05-14 09:50:10 UTC
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Comment 6 Bug Zapper 2009-06-10 00:19:28 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Comment 7 Bug Zapper 2009-07-14 15:25:15 UTC
Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.