Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:51:27AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 03:48:09PM -0400, Tom H wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >>> > >>> I didn't say

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 03:48:09PM -0400, Tom H wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>> >>> I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours >>> deals with

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Mon, 1 May 2017 21:16:33 +1000, Scott Leggett wrote: >On 2017-05-01.13:02, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:09:26 +0200, Christian Seiler >> wrote: >> >And as I said in other places in this thread: I personally >> >think that the separate /usr <->

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:09:26AM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > My point is just the following: this is really nothing new. > Some packages have been doing things like this for over a > decade. Thanks for coming up with these facts. (Much more interesting than developers of "system A"

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On 05/01/2017 01:02 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:09:26 +0200, Christian Seiler > wrote: >> And as I said in other places in this thread: I personally >> think that the separate /usr <-> /etc scheme is much better >> than just storing everything in /etc, so I

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On 2017-05-01.13:02, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:09:26 +0200, Christian Seiler > wrote: > >And as I said in other places in this thread: I personally > >think that the separate /usr <-> /etc scheme is much better > >than just storing everything in /etc, so I

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:09:26 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: >And as I said in other places in this thread: I personally >think that the separate /usr <-> /etc scheme is much better >than just storing everything in /etc, so I would really >prefer if as much software as possible

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On 05/01/2017 09:13 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > I find it already disturbing that we have diverged from "our" way in > systemd, which is probably the first package a local admin will be > exposed to. This is nothing new though. For example, DBus has had the /usr and /etc split since as far back as I

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:22:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >The original question was "should I install defaults in /etc or /usr?" >to which I replied that in Debian, we've traditionally done the former >rather than the latter, and that the latter feels like a result of an

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 03:48:09PM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours deals > > with it better. I stand by that. > > Sure; and an rpm or emerge user'll tell you that

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:49:52 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: >The only "benefit" I see is that the RPM way is less work for the >maintainer. Amen. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 12:16:31PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:48:09 -0400, Tom H wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >> I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours deals > >> with it

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:48:09 -0400, Tom H wrote: >On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours deals >> with it better. I stand by that. > >Sure; and an rpm or emerge user'll tell

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:21:17AM -0400, Tom H wrote: >> >> Did Linux development move as quickly as it does now? >> Did users experience more problems or failures when running those >> dist-upgrades? > > RedHat also

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:53:57AM -0400, Tom H wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>> >>> The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of >>>

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Russ Allbery writes: > Yup, this. It works because we support it, test it, treat bugs in the > upgrade process as critical, and take it into account in our release > engineering. It's a lot of work. > Red Hat has chosen not to do that work, so they don't support it. It's > a

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:21:17AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > Did Linux development move as quickly as it does now? > Did users experience more problems or failures when running those > dist-upgrades? RedHat also did not support upgrades back when they did not wait four years to do finish a new

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Brian May wrote: > On 2017-04-27 16:19, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >> >> It seems you've missed the point (which was about 4 years between RHEL >> releases). > > There was almost three years between Woody (July 19th 2002) and Sarge (June >

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Luca Capello wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 08:05:10 -0400, Tom H wrote: >> >> You can't dist-upgrade RHEL from 6 to 7 and you can't dist-upgrade >> Debian from 6 to 8 in one leap. > > Debian *does* support dist-upgrading between *following* releases

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:53 -0400, Tom H wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>> The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of >>> doing

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 08:03:13AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:18:54 +0200, Wouter Verhelst > wrote: > >I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours deals > >with it better. I stand by that. > > Given that dpkg's conffile handling still

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 09:00:41PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:16:58PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote: > > Both, procps and systemd support (/usr)?/lib/sysctl.d/*.conf, however only > > one package (systemd-coredump) uses it, all others drop files in > > /etc/sysctl.d. >

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:18:54 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours deals >with it better. I stand by that. Given that dpkg's conffile handling still has much headroom for improvement, this is a rather sad statement for

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Brian May writes: > On 2017-04-27 16:19, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >> It seems you've missed the point (which was about 4 years between RHEL >> releases). > There was almost three years between Woody (July 19th 2002) and Sarge > (June 6th 2005), yet we still allowed

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:53:57AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of > > doing things is prevalent in the RPM world; in Debian, however, we > >

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:05:10AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > > All of this is caused by Red Hat having no support for upgrades: > > > > https://access.redhat.com/solutions/21964 > > > > # Red Hat does not support

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Andrey Rahmatullin writes: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:12:25AM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: >> >> And, in any case, for your example on Debian you will do 6 -> 7 -> 8. > It seems you've missed the point (which was about 4 years between RHEL > releases). there were three years

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On 2017-04-27 16:19, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: It seems you've missed the point (which was about 4 years between RHEL releases). There was almost three years between Woody (July 19th 2002) and Sarge (June 6th 2005), yet we still allowed upgrades from Woody to Sarge. The time duration is

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:12:25AM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > Hi there, > > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 08:05:10 -0400, Tom H wrote: > > The reason that you can't dist-upgrade RHEL is that there's too large > > a gap between releases. > [...] > > You can't dist-upgrade RHEL from 6 to 7 and you can't

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Hi there, On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 08:05:10 -0400, Tom H wrote: > The reason that you can't dist-upgrade RHEL is that there's too large > a gap between releases. [...] > You can't dist-upgrade RHEL from 6 to 7 and you can't dist-upgrade > Debian from 6 to 8 in one leap. Debian *does* support

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:55:48PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > rpm doesn't have a problem with config file handling and deals with > > config files in a similar way that dpkg uses the "conffile" attribute > > to deal with them. rpm spec files use two (one-and-a-half?) macros: > > > > -

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:53 -0400, Tom H wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of > > doing things is prevalent in the RPM world; in Debian, however, we > > traditionally

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > All of this is caused by Red Hat having no support for upgrades: > > https://access.redhat.com/solutions/21964 > > # Red Hat does not support in-place upgrades between major versions 4, 5 and > # 6 of Red Hat

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of > doing things is prevalent in the RPM world; in Debian, however, we > traditionally have packages drop files in /etc, and let the maintainer >

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Christian Seiler wrote: > But this is a much more general problem. A lot of software in Debian > ships configuration files in /etc that look like this: > > # > # Setting ABC > # > #ABC = 123 I always thought that Debian shipping what is essentially documentation

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Christian Seiler writes: > In my experience, having to merge configuration files on updates has > cost me a _lot_ of time. At the same time I can't recall a single > instance in the last couple of years where the default behavior of an > application I used changed and I

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On 04/25/2017 07:59 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > In my experience as a user of some of those packages, it is intensely > annoying that a package upgrade suddenly changes some behaviour in ways > that I dislike and it's difficult to figure out what changed, because > the configuration is not in

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:17:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 23, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of > > doing things is prevalent in the RPM world; in Debian, however, we > > traditionally have packages

Re: default config not in /etc [was: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?]

Vincent Danjean wrote: > Perhaps, Debian can try to standardize this (for future releases), for > example asking to put the default config files in a central place (with > symlinks if required), for example /etc/default-config or even > /lib/default-config and/or /usr/lib/default-config. We

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:17:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > While this scheme was probably instigated by limitations in RPM, at this > > point we have had multiple packages (kmod, systemd, udev for a start) > > using it for years. > > > > Moving the sysctl.d default

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On 04/24/2017 08:20 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > Please note that the current sysctl interface doesn't play well with > network interfaces that get created on the fly, such as bonding, VLAN > interfaces or bridges. One needs to first initialize the network, then > do the sysctl business to catch those

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On 04/24/2017 08:20 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > Or it was the other way round. I remember going through bizarre > contortions to set IPv6 ip_forwarding on jessie without > systemd-networkd supporting this "exotic" use case. Note that it took a _ton_ of iterations for systemd-networkd to converge on a

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:00:41 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of >doing things is prevalent in the RPM world; in Debian, however, we >traditionally have packages drop files in /etc, and let the maintainer >change

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:11:37 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> 1. read current levels (using sysctl, not directly). >> >> 2. if they are above the default, don't change the state of the system: >>if your config file is there, let ucf

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:17:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 23, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of > > doing things is prevalent in the RPM world; in Debian, however, we > > traditionally have packages

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Apr 23, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of > doing things is prevalent in the RPM world; in Debian, however, we > traditionally have packages drop files in /etc, and let the maintainer While this scheme was

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 09:01:13PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:40:34AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 08:37:59PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:48:33AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > Evgeni Golov wrote: > > > >

default config not in /etc [was: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?]

Le 23/04/2017 à 19:48, Josh Triplett a écrit : > Evgeni Golov wrote: >> My gut feeling is that droping the file to /usr/lib and allowing the admin >> to override it later via /etc. And then load it in postinst. > > That seems like exactly the right approach, and yes, you should put it > in

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:40:34AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 08:37:59PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:48:33AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > Evgeni Golov wrote: > > > > But this does not account for the fact that this specific tunable may

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:16:58PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote: > Ohai, > > LXC recently got a bug (#860974) that is best fixed by bumping a certain > sysctl limit above the default. > > However I could not find any documented policy how to do this (if at all). > > Both, procps and systemd

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 08:37:59PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:48:33AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Evgeni Golov wrote: > > > But this does not account for the fact that this specific tunable may be > > > already overriden in another sysctl.d file and the package

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Hi Josh, On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:48:33AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Evgeni Golov wrote: > > LXC recently got a bug (#860974) that is best fixed by bumping a certain > > sysctl limit above the default. > > Note that in addition to going this route, you might consider talking with the >

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > 1. read current levels (using sysctl, not directly). > > 2. if they are above the default, don't change the state of the system: >if your config file is there, let ucf handle its update normally. if >your config file is *NOT* there, assume deleted and

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Evgeni Golov wrote: > LXC recently got a bug (#860974) that is best fixed by bumping a certain > sysctl limit above the default. Note that in addition to going this route, you might consider talking with the kernel maintainers about increasing the default limit, or potentially even getting the

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 09:08:45AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Evgeni Golov wrote: > > Both, procps and systemd support (/usr)?/lib/sysctl.d/*.conf, however only > > one package (systemd-coredump) uses it, all others drop files in > > /etc/sysctl.d. > > Please

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Evgeni Golov wrote: > Both, procps and systemd support (/usr)?/lib/sysctl.d/*.conf, however only > one package (systemd-coredump) uses it, all others drop files in > /etc/sysctl.d. Please drop it in /etc, debhelper/dh should mark it as conffile and everything will work.

policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

Ohai, LXC recently got a bug (#860974) that is best fixed by bumping a certain sysctl limit above the default. However I could not find any documented policy how to do this (if at all). Both, procps and systemd support (/usr)?/lib/sysctl.d/*.conf, however only one package (systemd-coredump)