On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:46 -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:39:16PM +0100, Vincent Blut wrote: > > > We could do that. However, in the past (earlier in this bug, > > > even) it's > > > been pointed out that other packages should not be responsible > > > for > > > setting kernel policies, so changes like this should be the > > > responsibility of the kernel packages. That seems like a > > > sensible > > > position to take. > > > > If this is the position of the kernel team, then fine. But some > > packages *do* > > tweak kernel parameters using the sysctl interface mechanism. So > > does the kernel > > team provides documention about what is acceptable? > > I think the distinction is that the other packages that tweak sysctl > values don't claim to be doing so on behalf of the kernel team. If > the > kernel team is responsible for the values being set, then the > settings > should come from a package that the kernel team owns, not some other > package. Right, maybe in linux-base? Although that might annoy derivatives that want different defaults. procps is the wrong place, not just because it's out of our hands, but because systemd applies sysctl configuration now and procps is optional. Ben. > AFAIK, there are no guidelines or policy anywhere in Debian about > whether or not a package can provide its own sysctl settings. > > noah > -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part