On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 09:45:44 (-0500), allan wrote:
> I've run Sid exclusively for years; the last time I broke it badly
> enough to justify a reinstall was in 2013 and that was for not paying
> attention during an upgrade :)
>
> My heartburn is I would have expected to see this change in a
> ch
On Mon 29 Jul 2024 at 09:23:16 (+0700), Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 28/07/2024 20:08, Erwan David wrote:
> > I also have a 99-systcl.conf which is a copy of the former /etc/sysctl.conf
>
> When you are going to replace a file provided by a package, check if
> it is a configuration file at first (e.g.
On 28/07/2024 20:08, Erwan David wrote:
I also have a 99-systcl.conf which is a copy of the former /etc/sysctl.conf
When you are going to replace a file provided by a package, check if it
is a configuration file at first (e.g. dpkg -s). Despite most of files
in /etc/ are marked as configurati
On 2024-07-28 20:01:35 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> In the interests of posting something *useful*, here's a timeline.
> As I understand it, here's what's happened so far:
>
> 2024-06-23: bug #1074156 filed against package procps
> procps: Depend or Recommend linux-sysctl-defaults
> Bug f
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 01:13:10 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2024-07-28 14:13:09 +, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> > And posting on debian-user with a bombastic Subject line which implies
> > that this is a widespread issue when it really only seems to exist in
> > Unstable is, quite frankly,
On 2024-07-28 14:13:09 +, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> And posting on debian-user with a bombastic Subject line which implies
> that this is a widespread issue when it really only seems to exist in
> Unstable is, quite frankly, in my opinion at best dishonest.
No, the breakage was done *on purpos
I've run Sid exclusively for years; the last time I broke it badly
enough to justify a reinstall was in 2013 and that was for not paying
attention during an upgrade :)
My heartburn is I would have expected to see this change in a
changelog and apt-listchanges didn't say a word about this.
As far
On 2024-07-28 at 10:13, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2024 15:08 +0200, from er...@rail.eu.org (Erwan David):
>> Le 28/07/2024 à 14:28, allan a écrit :
>>> I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized.
>>
>> [...] But in my view it is a bug to remove something else than the
>>
On 28 Jul 2024 15:08 +0200, from er...@rail.eu.org (Erwan David):
> Le 28/07/2024 à 14:28, allan a écrit :
>> I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized.
>
> [...] But in my view it is a bug to remove something else than
> the symlink even with the same name
At the risk of repeati
Le 28/07/2024 à 14:28, allan a écrit :
I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized.
I found the 99-sysctl.conf symlink accidentally. I removed the
symlink and moved sysctl.conf to 99-sysctl.conf since the original
config was not being read. This turned out to be a lousy idea sin
I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized.
I found the 99-sysctl.conf symlink accidentally. I removed the
symlink and moved sysctl.conf to 99-sysctl.conf since the original
config was not being read. This turned out to be a lousy idea since
the symlink was removed with the next
On 28 Jul 2024 04:25 +0200, from vinc...@vinc17.net (Vincent Lefevre):
>> A conffile is user-managed, so any changes you make to a conffile must
>> be respected by the package. It can't just overwrite your changes, or
>> restore a conffile if you've deleted it.
>
> This is rather poor design, bec
12 matches
Mail list logo
