On 2024-07-28 22:26:10 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 16:43:01 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2024-07-28 00:07:56 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > It looks accidental to me that systemd did that tidying up before
> > > procps had attempted to remove the file that it (procps) owned.
> >
> > No, the breakage was done on purpose: my bug report specifically
> > about this breakage by systemd was closed in a rather abrupt way:
> >
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1077184
>
> I only wrote that the /order/ was accidental:
If this were accidental, the bug should have been left open.
> upgrading systemd before
> procps had removed its conffile. When the latter happens, you should
> get asked about that conffile, and if not, then that's surely a bug
> in procps, not systemd: procps owned the file, so procps disowned it.
>
> In fact, here's procps disowning /etc/sysctl.conf:
>
> procps (2:4.0.4-5) unstable; urgency=medium
>
> * Add Recommends: linux-sysctl-defaults Closes: #1074156
> * Remove /etc/sysctl.conf as using /etc/sysctl.d/*.conf is better
>
> (the top of /usr/share/doc/procps/changelog.Debian.gz 4.0.4-5)
It was clear in my bug report that this applies only to new
installations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The /etc/sysctl.conf file is no longer read, while I have security
settings there.
I suspect that the cause is
* Drop /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink procps no longer ships
/etc/sysctl.conf (Closes: #1076190)
which is wrong!
cventin:~> dpkg -S /etc/sysctl.conf
procps: /etc/sysctl.conf
with procps 2:4.0.4-5.
Perhaps procps no longer ships /etc/sysctl.conf *by default*, but
existing installations still have it (a machine I installed in
January still has this file).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > As it turns out, it's a combination of the two packages. In
> > > > > > > bookworm,
> > > > > > > /etc/sysctl.conf is a Conffile of the procps package, and
> > > > > > > /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf is a regular file (non-Conffile) of
> > > > > > > the systemd package.
> > >
> > > That symlink was suggested as legacy support for reading the conf file
> > > over a decade ago. Bullseye's man 8 sysctl indicates it still reads
> > > /etc/sysctl.conf with its --system option, but bookworm lacks that
> ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ trixie
> > > manpage, and instead its man 5 sysctl.d lists only files residing
> > > in …/sysctl.d/ directories as being read; hence the legacy symlink.
> >
> > No, I have a bookworm machine, and the sysctl.conf(5) man page is
> > still there (in addition to the sysctl.d(5) man page).
>
> Sorry, I meant to write trixie, not bookworm; stable and oldstable are
> the same. Your complaint is with unstable.
But unstable will migrate to trixie. Nothing has been done yet to
remove the man page (and references to /etc/sysctl.conf).
> > No, this is not sufficient. During an upgrade, a package is allowed
> > to do a merge of the new defaults (this occurs quite frequently).
>
> That doesn't square with Policy, and this typical dialogue that
> we've all seen:
>
> Configuration file `foo'
> ==> Modified (by you or by a script) since installation.
> ==> Package distributor has shipped an updated version.
> What would you like to do about it ? Your options are:
> Y or I : install the package maintainer's version
> N or O : keep your currently-installed version
> D : show the differences between the versions
> Z : start a shell to examine the situation
> The default action is to keep your current version.
> *** foo (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ?
>
> Might your merges apply to configuration files rather than conffiles?
There are several ways to update the configuration in an upgrade.
Not every package uses this method.
> I would file a bug against procps rather than systemd, for dropping
> the conffile status of /etc/sysctl.conf. Once you upgrade to Debian's
> 4.0.4-5, that file becomes just any old file that you happen to have
> under /etc/, and I don't see why systemd should be obliged to retain
> the legacy symlink any longer.
No, after the upgrade to 4.0.4-5, /etc/sysctl.conf was still seen
as a conffile (and there wasn't any announcement of a change). So
there wasn't any apparent bug in procps.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
