On 2024-08-01 23:17:42 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> The reference also says:
>
> Only pure stable release with security updates provides the best
> stability.
But stable does not mean bugless. Unfortunately stable sometimes
has major bugs, and the only thing to do is to wait for the nex
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 12:57 PM Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> Andy Smith wrote:
> > This whole thing just seems like the normal process of developing
> > and packaging a distribution. Poor interactions are found, reported,
> > hopefully will be fixed. But once again there's people trying to use
> > this a
On Friday, 02-08-2024 at 02:39 Dan Ritter wrote:
> Andy Smith wrote:
> > This whole thing just seems like the normal process of developing
> > and packaging a distribution. Poor interactions are found, reported,
> > hopefully will be fixed. But once again there's people trying to use
> > this a
Andy Smith wrote:
> This whole thing just seems like the normal process of developing
> and packaging a distribution. Poor interactions are found, reported,
> hopefully will be fixed. But once again there's people trying to use
> this as a daily driver and having weird expectations. And then some
Am Do, Aug 01, 2024 at 14:08:21 + schrieb Andy Smith:
I feel like we see it more and more, these expectations about sid,
and I don't understand why.
Maybe because these bugs have already reached testing?
My testing system has this buggy version of procps.
Interestingly /etc/sysctl.conf is
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 16:03:32 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> so the silent breakage was known and done on purpose.
... OK, you're just living in a personal fantasy. There's nothing more
to be gained by trying to interact with you on this topic, so I'm going
to stop now.
Vincent Lefevre (12024-08-01):
> so the silent breakage was known and done on purpose.
Cutting yourself on Hanlon's Razor.
--
Nicolas George
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 09:37:54AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> I see NO reason to point fingers of blame at systemd (cf. Subject:).
>
> I see nothing amiss here in the order in which packages were uploaded.
>
> I see NO reason that these two packages have to be upgraded in a specific
> ord
On 2024-08-01 09:37:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 14:47:16 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > No, even for unstable, maintainers should ensure that packages are
> > upgraded in the right order.
>
> Once again, here is my understanding of the current situation:
>
> 1) A
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 14:47:16 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> No, even for unstable, maintainers should ensure that packages are
> upgraded in the right order.
Once again, here is my understanding of the current situation:
1) A new procps package was uploaded, which no longer has /etc/sysctl.
On 2024-07-29 23:36:02 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 29 Jul 2024 at 11:24:25 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > 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:
> >
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 (pro
On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 16:43:01 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2024-07-28 00:07:56 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 04:25:32 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2024-07-27 20:25:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:17:19 +0200, Vincent
On 2024-07-28 11:21:01 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 16:43:01 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > More or less. In the systemd case, for each file, either one chooses
> > it, i.e. one has all the current defaults, or one chooses to provide
> > a replacement under /etc, i.e. on
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 16:43:01 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> More or less. In the systemd case, for each file, either one chooses
> it, i.e. one has all the current defaults, or one chooses to provide
> a replacement under /etc, i.e. one entirely replaces the defaults by
> one's own settings. A
On 2024-07-28 00:07:56 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 04:25:32 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2024-07-27 20:25:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:17:19 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > The configuration got broken by a *systemd* upgra
On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 04:25:32 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2024-07-27 20:25:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:17:19 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > The configuration got broken by a *systemd* upgrade:
> > >
> > > * Drop /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symli
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed
(currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that
the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW)
is no longer read.
So, be careful if you have important settings there (security...).
Thanks
On 2024-07-27 20:25:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:04:14 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2024-07-27 10:23:01 +0200, Michel Verdier wrote:
> > > /etc/sysctl.d/README.sysctl recommends to use a separate file such as
> > > /etc/sysctl.d/local.conf
> >
> > No, it does
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 01:04:14 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2024-07-27 10:23:01 +0200, Michel Verdier wrote:
> > /etc/sysctl.d/README.sysctl recommends to use a separate file such as
> > /etc/sysctl.d/local.conf
>
> No, it does *not* recommend anything:
>
> ---
On 2024-07-27 09:26:49 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >
> > > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed
> > > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that
> > > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW)
> > >
On 2024-07-27 10:23:01 +0200, Michel Verdier wrote:
> On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed
> > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that
> > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW)
> > is no longe
On Sat 27 Jul 2024 at 09:26:49 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >
> > > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed
> > > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that
> > > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, B
> On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed
> > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that
> > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW)
> > is no longer read.
> >
> > So, be careful if you have important
On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed
> (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that
> the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW)
> is no longer read.
>
> So, be careful if you have important settings there
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:00 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed
> (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that
> the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW)
> is no longer read.
>
> So, be careful if you have impor
I had already removed the symlink and migrated sysctl.conf to
99-sysctl.conf and it appears Debian deleted that file as well.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 9:00 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed
> (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*,
27 matches
Mail list logo
