Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-08-01 23:17:42 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > The reference also says: > > Only pure stable release with security updates provides the best > stability. But stable does not mean bugless. Unfortunately stable sometimes has major bugs, and the only thing to do is to wait for the nex

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 12:57 PM Dan Ritter wrote: > > Andy Smith wrote: > > This whole thing just seems like the normal process of developing > > and packaging a distribution. Poor interactions are found, reported, > > hopefully will be fixed. But once again there's people trying to use > > this a

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Friday, 02-08-2024 at 02:39 Dan Ritter wrote: > Andy Smith wrote: > > This whole thing just seems like the normal process of developing > > and packaging a distribution. Poor interactions are found, reported, > > hopefully will be fixed. But once again there's people trying to use > > this a

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

Andy Smith wrote: > This whole thing just seems like the normal process of developing > and packaging a distribution. Poor interactions are found, reported, > hopefully will be fixed. But once again there's people trying to use > this as a daily driver and having weird expectations. And then some

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

Am Do, Aug 01, 2024 at 14:08:21 + schrieb Andy Smith: I feel like we see it more and more, these expectations about sid, and I don't understand why. Maybe because these bugs have already reached testing? My testing system has this buggy version of procps. Interestingly /etc/sysctl.conf is

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 16:03:32 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > so the silent breakage was known and done on purpose. ... OK, you're just living in a personal fantasy. There's nothing more to be gained by trying to interact with you on this topic, so I'm going to stop now.

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

Vincent Lefevre (12024-08-01): > so the silent breakage was known and done on purpose. Cutting yourself on Hanlon's Razor. -- Nicolas George

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

Hi, On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 09:37:54AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > I see NO reason to point fingers of blame at systemd (cf. Subject:). > > I see nothing amiss here in the order in which packages were uploaded. > > I see NO reason that these two packages have to be upgraded in a specific > ord

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-08-01 09:37:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 14:47:16 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > No, even for unstable, maintainers should ensure that packages are > > upgraded in the right order. > > Once again, here is my understanding of the current situation: > > 1) A

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 14:47:16 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > No, even for unstable, maintainers should ensure that packages are > upgraded in the right order. Once again, here is my understanding of the current situation: 1) A new procps package was uploaded, which no longer has /etc/sysctl.

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-07-29 23:36:02 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 29 Jul 2024 at 11:24:25 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2024-07-28 22:26:10 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 16:43:01 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > On 2024-07-28 00:07:56 -0500, David Wright wrote: > >

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-07-28 22:26:10 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 16:43:01 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2024-07-28 00:07:56 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > It looks accidental to me that systemd did that tidying up before > > > procps had attempted to remove the file that it (pro

Re: Upgrading systemd may silently break your Unstable/Sid system!; was: systemd may silently break your system!

On Mon 29 Jul 2024 at 09:23:16 (+0700), Max Nikulin wrote: > On 28/07/2024 20:08, Erwan David wrote: > > I also have a 99-systcl.conf which is a copy of the former /etc/sysctl.conf > > When you are going to replace a file provided by a package, check if > it is a configuration file at first (e.g.

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 16:43:01 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2024-07-28 00:07:56 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 04:25:32 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2024-07-27 20:25:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:17:19 +0200, Vincent

Re: Upgrading systemd may silently break your Unstable/Sid system!; was: systemd may silently break your system!

On 28/07/2024 20:08, Erwan David wrote: I also have a 99-systcl.conf which is a copy of the former /etc/sysctl.conf When you are going to replace a file provided by a package, check if it is a configuration file at first (e.g. dpkg -s). Despite most of files in /etc/ are marked as configurati

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-07-28 11:21:01 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 16:43:01 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > More or less. In the systemd case, for each file, either one chooses > > it, i.e. one has all the current defaults, or one chooses to provide > > a replacement under /etc, i.e. on

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 16:43:01 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > More or less. In the systemd case, for each file, either one chooses > it, i.e. one has all the current defaults, or one chooses to provide > a replacement under /etc, i.e. one entirely replaces the defaults by > one's own settings. A

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-07-28 00:07:56 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 04:25:32 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2024-07-27 20:25:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:17:19 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > The configuration got broken by a *systemd* upgra

Re: Upgrading systemd may silently break your Unstable/Sid system!; was: systemd may silently break your system!

Le 28/07/2024 à 14:28, allan a écrit : I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized. I found the 99-sysctl.conf symlink accidentally. I removed the symlink and moved sysctl.conf to 99-sysctl.conf since the original config was not being read. This turned out to be a lousy idea sin

Re: Upgrading systemd may silently break your Unstable/Sid system!; was: systemd may silently break your system!

I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized. I found the 99-sysctl.conf symlink accidentally. I removed the symlink and moved sysctl.conf to 99-sysctl.conf since the original config was not being read. This turned out to be a lousy idea since the symlink was removed with the next

Re: Upgrading systemd may silently break your Unstable/Sid system!; was: systemd may silently break your system!

On 28 Jul 2024 04:25 +0200, from vinc...@vinc17.net (Vincent Lefevre): >> A conffile is user-managed, so any changes you make to a conffile must >> be respected by the package. It can't just overwrite your changes, or >> restore a conffile if you've deleted it. > > This is rather poor design, bec

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 04:25:32 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2024-07-27 20:25:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:17:19 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > The configuration got broken by a *systemd* upgrade: > > > > > > * Drop /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symli

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

Vincent Lefevre wrote: The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW) is no longer read. So, be careful if you have important settings there (security...). Thanks

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-07-27 20:25:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:04:14 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2024-07-27 10:23:01 +0200, Michel Verdier wrote: > > > /etc/sysctl.d/README.sysctl recommends to use a separate file such as > > > /etc/sysctl.d/local.conf > > > > No, it does

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:04:14 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2024-07-27 10:23:01 +0200, Michel Verdier wrote: > > /etc/sysctl.d/README.sysctl recommends to use a separate file such as > > /etc/sysctl.d/local.conf > > No, it does *not* recommend anything: > > ---

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-07-27 09:26:49 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed > > > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that > > > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW) > > >

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-07-27 10:23:01 +0200, Michel Verdier wrote: > On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed > > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that > > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW) > > is no longe

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On Sat 27 Jul 2024 at 09:26:49 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed > > > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that > > > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, B

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

> On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed > > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that > > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW) > > is no longer read. > > > > So, be careful if you have important

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW) > is no longer read. > > So, be careful if you have important settings there

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

e careful if you have important settings there (security...). I had to laugh when I saw the title: systemd may silently break your system! So what's new in the world according to Poettering? Jeff

Re: systemd may silently break your system!

I had already removed the symlink and migrated sysctl.conf to 99-sysctl.conf and it appears Debian deleted that file as well. On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 9:00 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*,

systemd may silently break your system!

The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW) is no longer read. So, be careful if you have important settings there (security...). -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: