On 03/16/2012 02:28 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 16.03.12 14:54, Muayyad AlSadi (alsadi@xxxxxxxxx) 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 package that needs to enable
forwarding, it would put it in a sysctl.d
If a package places a sysctl file in /etc/sysctl.d/ then you can
override it with /etc/sysctl.conf, hence everything is as it should, no?
This whole logic is designed so that the admin's configuration always
takes precedence over vendor configuration. Which is the right thing to
do.
That said, note that it's probably a good idea if packages stick their
sysctl files in /usr/lib/sysctl.d instead, so that that users can use
/etc/sysctl.d/ to override that. /etc/sysctl.conf is read mostly for
compatibility reasons only.
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 /etc/sysctl.d This would work only if sysctl.conf is empty and all
default configuration is moved to /etc/sysctl.d/00-systemdefault.conf
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
