On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:14:24AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kay Sievers <k...@vrfy.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Colin Guthrie <gm...@colin.guthr.ie> > > wrote: > > >> I only just rejigged things for the last time this flipped around and > >> now sysctl has decided to buck the trend of the other tools and follow a > >> "later file has priority"? I think consistency is good here (even if > >> conceptually, a later file overriding an earlier one "feels" better. > > > > Yes, and later-override-earlier is by far the bigger trend. :) > > > >> The order was previously "fixed" such that earlier files win for several > >> tools binfmt, tmpfiles > >> modules-load > > Oh, what a mess. Quite a few man pages described pretty much the > opposite of what is done, not only in that file this patch fixed. > > I now hopefully fixed all of the man pages to describe what the code > does. Now we have: > > binfmt - the last entry wins, people are allowed to overwrite earlier stuff > tmpfiles - the first entry wins; uniqueness required, everything else an > error > sysctl - the last entry wins, people are allowed overwrite earlier stuff > presets - the first entry wins, the search just stops there > modules-load - there is no order, it's just a set of names that gets applied Hm, and .service and service.d/*.conf? I think last entry wins also.
> There is no strictly consistent behavior between the different tools, > and I think for good reason, the do different things, some assign > values, some can't merge entries and require uniqueness, soem are just > lists; all seem to have their reason to do it in the way that makes > the most sense. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel