On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 20:13 +1000, Craig Small wrote: > On Mon, 26 May 2025 at 02:05, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > linux-sysctl-defaults is meant to provide defaults only. Therefore I > > don't think it is appropriate to add that example/template to it. > > > > What is the problem with keeping an example in procps? > > > > I can do that, but on a standard Debian system you're not even using the > procps sysctl to do the parsing as it is systemd-sysctl in the systemd > package doing it.
I'm well aware of that. > It's not going to hurt putting it there, I'm just not sure anyone is going to > find it because the > only reason for an example sysctl file is historical. I think system administrators looking to experiment with sysctl changes are more likely to reaach for procps and the sysctl command, because: - sysctl is on the path while systemd-sysctl isn't - "apt search sysctl" finds procps and not systemd - A web search for "linux sysctl examples" finds mostly pages mentioning the sysctl command Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
