> On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:42 PM, li...@wrant.com wrote:
> Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:33:31 -0700 Peter Faiman <peterfai...@gmail.com>
>> # ./sysctl -p example.conf
>> Peter
> Hi Peter, ansibles,
> No guarantee systems controls stay affixed, wrapper tools comply got it?

The point of sysctl -p is reloading from a file. So that you put controls in
the file and load that file, exactly as happens in system startup. The whole
point is to ensure consistency with system startup. True, securelevel throws
a bit of a wrench in that, but this works for all other settings.

> Wrap around as advised for a system operator, don't push for short cuts.

It’s not a short cut. Ansible wants sysctl -p, I implemented sysctl -p
exactly as Linux does it, using the OpenBSD /etc/rc code that actually
applies sysctls from /etc/sysctl.conf.

I never said anyone should use Ansible. I don't use it, I don't like it. But
clearly this person is going to use it, so I might as well give them
something that will do what they want, even if I don't agree with it.

> Please, stop imposing your designs on our systems wasting precious time.

I'm not imposing my designs on anyone. Someone on the mailing list needed
the exact Linux behavior, so I spent 5 minutes on the train to work writing
and testing a compatible tool.

I already _specifically_ said I wrote a wrapper this way because it's the
easiest way to be compatible without changing ANY OpenBSD code, or ANYTHING
else about the OpenBSD system. In other words I deliberately chose to solve
this problem in a way that imposes NOTHING on anyone else.

> Kind regards,

You should stop putting this at the bottom of your emails if you think it's
acceptable to talk to others this way. When you send out half-baked
responses that clearly demonstrate you did not bother to read what I said,
you're the one wasting my time.


Reply via email to