Your message dated Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:27:57 +1100
with message-id
<caly8cw580rdzf12+5_aayvf2tzg3ow4s99ea_oxxbqx8bnr...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#982436: procps: Please allow overriding
protect-links.conf settings via /etc/sysctl.conf
has caused the Debian Bug report #982436,
regarding procps: Please allow overriding protect-links.conf settings via
/etc/sysctl.conf
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
982436: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=982436
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: procps
Version: 2:3.3.17-1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: none
Hi,
I have set fs.protected_fifos=2 in /etc/sysctl.conf.
My intent is to override procps' protect-links.conf,
which sets fs.protected_fifos=1.
Under systemd, /etc/sysctl.conf is actually loaded via the
/etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink, which sorts before
protect-links.conf, so the distro setting from protect-links.conf
overrides the custom value I've set in /etc/sysctl.conf.
I find this counter-intuitive: I would expect whatever I write in
/etc/sysctl.conf to override distro defaults. This has historically
been the case, and at least one system management tool I'm using (a
Puppet module) operates under the same assumption.
I understand this assumption still works fine in every other case in
Debian, because:
- The name of the /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink starts with
"99", which should sort last if all other such *.conf files have
names that start with NN < 99.
- All other packages that ship files in /usr/lib/sysctl.d/
call these files NN-*.conf, with N < 99.
The only exception in the archive is procps, which does not use such
a numeric prefix, and thus makes this assumption incorrect wrt.
the contents of protect-links.conf.
Would you mind renaming protect-links.conf to NN-protect-links.conf,
with NN < 99?
Thanks for maintaining procps, and thanks in advance for considering
my request :)
Cheers!
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (2, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, TAINT_USER
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Versions of packages procps depends on:
ii init-system-helpers 1.60
ii libc6 2.31-9
ii libncurses6 6.2+20201114-2
ii libncursesw6 6.2+20201114-2
ii libprocps8 2:3.3.17-1
ii libtinfo6 6.2+20201114-2
ii lsb-base 11.1.0
Versions of packages procps recommends:
ii psmisc 23.4-2
procps suggests no packages.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 19:24, intrigeri <intrig...@debian.org> wrote:
> Since then, a duplicate bug report was filed (#1000908) and promptly
> fixed in 2:3.3.17-6 ⇒ this bug report can now be closed :)
>
Done!
--- End Message ---
