On Fri, 16.03.12 14:40, Michal Hlavinka (mhlavink@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > 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 Ah, hmm, I wasn't aware of that. 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. (That said, if that's really not possible, and we need to keep the file, we should probaly name it /usr/lib/sysctl.d/00-systemd-default.conf or so) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
