Bug#1110184: release-notes: document /etc/sysctl.conf being dropped
Justin B Rye <[email protected]> Tue, 5 Aug 2025 18:37:20 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <aJJBUAsL2k6fR1nD__28983.3809643582$1754415566$gmane$org@jbr.me.uk> |
(I think I've fallen behind the conversation) Samuel Plavec wrote: > Justin B Rye <[email protected]> wrote: >> Richard Lewis wrote: >>> [...] >>> there is some important package that you now need to install to get the >>> symlink. >> >> That'll be linux-sysctl-defaults (Priority: important, with a >> Recommends from systemd). > > I am not sure if I understand you correctly, but that package only > contains /usr/lib/sysctl.d/50-default.conf, > not /etc/sysctl.conf or /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf. My understanding was that the reason /etc/sysctl.conf was a symlink is that systemd doesn't read that file, so it has been deprecated for a while; and the file in /etc has been replaced with one in /usr/lib, because that's the usual way systemd does things - packaged defaults go in /usr/lib/sysctl.d/, local overrides go in /etc/sysctl.d/. Unfortunately this changeover seems to throw away any customisations you've made, requiring you to reintroduce them in the new system. It's a pity this didn't get a systemd NEWS.Debian entry (along with the several trixie news items that are already in that file). >> That is, we could advise users to run >> >> apt list \!~i~important >> apt list \!~i~pstandard > > On my PC, after upgrading to trixie, /etc/sysctl.conf had been removed > (or, more precisely, it had been renamed to sysctl.conf.dpkg-bak). > None of the packages suggested by those commands appears that it could > have prevented that. These are just tests that would have warned you that you needed the new package, since the *other* problem is that you don't necessarily get it installed on dist-upgrade (but that's bug #1099613). If linux-sysctl-defaults isn't installed, you end up with some even defaultier defaults. See 5.1.12. Ping no longer runs with elevated privileges for the item we already had about this particular aspect. > (Actually, isn't there a "p" before "important" missing in the first > command? It does not appear to work without it.) Yes, and it gives a fairly clear error message, which tells me I introduced that typo somewhere in the copy/pasting process.