Hi, Le 2021-01-21 00:43, Ben Hutchings a écrit : > 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. Is there a definitive answer from the kernel team about how this should be implemented? In the meantime, Noah sent [1]. > Ben. Cheers, Vincent [1] https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/309/diffs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature