On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:49:56PM +0300, Evangelos Foutras wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Tom Gundersen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Apr 24, 2012 1:29 AM, "Eric Bélanger" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> The procps project didn't had any new release for a while and the > >>> current package use a dozen of patches to fix miscellenaous things. > >>> I'm thinking about switching to procps-ng[1]. Procps-ng is a fork of > >>> procps by Debian, Fedora and openSUSE. Gentoo is also using procps-ng > >>> (although, like Debian, the package is still named procps). > >>> > >>> I also intend to replace the home made sysctl.conf that we currently > >>> provide by the upstream version of that file. > >>> > >>> Any comments, objections? > >> > >> +1 > > > > Objection to the now-shipped /etc/sysctl.conf file, so I'm giving a -1 > > signoff here. It moved my existing file to a .pacsave, and the > > defaults are total shit, not to mention the file is a formatting > > nightmare. Some lowlights: > > > > # see the evil packets in your log files > > net/ipv4/conf/all/log_martians=1 > > > > # makes you vulnerable or not :-) > > net/ipv4/conf/all/accept_redirects=0 > > net/ipv4/conf/all/accept_source_route=0 > > net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts =1 > > > > > > # This limits PID values to 4 digits, which allows tools like ps > > # to save screen space. > > kernel/pid_max=10000 > > +1. > > Let's keep the existing default sysctl.conf from procps.
I'm not a fan of this either, but keeping the original config file means that we just rename procps-ng as procps, no? Any other way will result in /etc/sysctl.conf being renamed with .pacsave. d
