hi everybody,
in recent fedora releases I can see we have /etc/sysctl.d/
but does it really get evaluated
eg. let's put in /etc/sysctl.d/00-ojuba-enabled-sysrq.conf
kernel.sysrq = 1
and keep it 0 in /etc/sysctl.conf
kernel.sysrq = 0
then reboot then type
sysctl kernel.sysrq
it was reported
On Fri, 16.03.12 14:40, Muayyad AlSadi (als...@gmail.com) wrote:
> hi everybody,
>
> in recent fedora releases I can see we have /etc/sysctl.d/
>
> but does it really get evaluated
>
> eg. let's put in /etc/sysctl.d/00-ojuba-enabled-sysrq.conf
>
> kernel.sysrq = 1
>
> and keep it 0 in /etc/sy
but this does not make sense
the idea behind all .d is to allow packages to provide default (either
kernel defaults or distro defaults)
because the other choice is to use %post and sed
eg. let's say I made a firewall package that needs to enable
forwarding, it would put it in a sysctl.d
what do
On Fri, 16.03.12 14:54, Muayyad AlSadi (als...@gmail.com) wrote:
> but this does not make sense
>
> the idea behind all .d is to allow packages to provide default (either
> kernel defaults or distro defaults)
> because the other choice is to use %post and sed
> eg. let's say I made a firewall pa
On 03/16/2012 02:28 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 16.03.12 14:54, Muayyad AlSadi (als...@gmail.com) wrote:
but this does not make sense
the idea behind all .d is to allow packages to provide default (either
kernel defaults or distro defaults)
because the other choice is to use %post an
>
> As I understand it, Muayyad has different problem. Right now, the
> /etc/sysctl.conf we ship is not empty. It has several values set, one of
> them is sysrq=0 he used in his example. No one set this is value, it's just
> default value and yet, no package can change it by placing its file in
> /
Dne 16.3.2012 14:40, Michal Hlavinka napsal:
As I understand it, Muayyad has different problem. Right now, the
/etc/sysctl.conf we ship is not empty. It has several values set, one of
them is sysrq=0 he used in his example. No one set this is value, it's
just default value and yet, no package can
Am 16.03.2012 15:21, schrieb Michal Schmidt:
> Dne 16.3.2012 14:40, Michal Hlavinka napsal:
>> As I understand it, Muayyad has different problem. Right now, the
>> /etc/sysctl.conf we ship is not empty. It has several values set, one of
>> them is sysrq=0 he used in his example. No one set this i
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:13:31PM +0200, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it, Muayyad has different problem. Right now, the
> > /etc/sysctl.conf we ship is not empty. It has several values set, one of
> > them is sysrq=0 he used in his example. No one set this is value, it's just
> >
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 15:16 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:13:31PM +0200, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
> > >
> > > As I understand it, Muayyad has different problem. Right now, the
> > > /etc/sysctl.conf we ship is not empty. It has several values set, one of
> > > them is sys
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> No package should be automatically changing the sysrq policy.
Why not?
For example, I use a commercial backup program that makes extensive use
of IPC and needs the msgmni and msgmnb limits raised beyond the default
values. Why shouldn't they be able to
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
/etc/sysctl.conf is interpreted after /etc/sysctl.d is. The former hence
overrides settings in the latter.
and Muayyad AlSadi responded:
> but this does not make sense
>
> the idea behind all .d is to allow packages to provide default
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:57:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > No package should be automatically changing the sysrq policy.
>
> Why not?
>
> For example, I use a commercial backup program that makes extensive use
> of IPC and needs the msgmni and msgm
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:57:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > > No package should be automatically changing the sysrq policy.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > For example, I use a commercial backup program that mak
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:57:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > No package should be automatically changing the sysrq policy.
>
> Why not?
>
> For example, I use a commercial backup program that makes extensive use
> of IPC and needs the msgmni a
Once upon a time, Dave Jones said:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:57:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > > No package should be automatically changing the sysrq policy.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > For example, I use a commercial backup program that ma
Once upon a time, Chris Adams said:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:57:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > > > No package should be automatically changing the sysrq policy.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> > >
> > > Fo
> What happens if two packages want to set a sysctl to different values ?
that's why they are prefixed with numbers, the higher number will take
effect
eg. 99-foobar.conf
sometimes we have conventions for number ranges like this
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Choosing_a_
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:42:50PM +0200, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
> > What happens if two packages want to set a sysctl to different values ?
>
> that's why they are prefixed with numbers, the higher number will take
> effect
> eg. 99-foobar.conf
>
> sometimes we have conventions for number
>
>
> If 00-foo sets something to value A, and 99-bar sets it to B,
> and B < A, foo may not function correctly.
>
> This isn't an ordering problem, it's an exclusivity problem, because
> sysctls are system-wide, not per-package.
>
this applies to every thing,
if 00-foo sets foo as the best font
Reindl Harald wrote:
> yes, but the really bug is that "sysctl.conf" is not shipped empty
>
> it should be the global place where the admin can override ANY setting
> from any other file/package and so it is correct to apply systcl.conf
> as last item - as said only if it would be shipped empty
+
On Fri, 16.03.12 14:40, Michal Hlavinka (mhlav...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 03/16/2012 02:28 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >On Fri, 16.03.12 14:54, Muayyad AlSadi (als...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >>but this does not make sense
> >>
> >>the idea behind all .d is to allow packages to provide default
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> I think ideally we'd just change the defaults in our kernel so that we
> ship with no default sysctl.conf file. Reconfiguring the kernel defaults
> all the time out-of-the-box sounds pretty suboptimal to me.
It would be better to keep upstream kernel d
Le Ven 16 mars 2012 21:16, Dave Jones a écrit :
> This isn't an ordering problem, it's an exclusivity problem, because
> sysctls are system-wide, not per-package.
Fontconfig is system-wide too and fontconfig rules have many inter-rule
interactions.
There is no way a .d setup can handle conflict
24 matches
Mail list logo
