Hi, On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 10:02:02AM -0500, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > Control: tags -1 + patch > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 03:52:55PM -0800, Tianon Gravi wrote: > > > Regarding tasksel vs. Priority, the latter has a potential for a much > > > wider impact: lots of Debian system are installed without d-i and/or > > > tasksel, and most if not all would get the package via Priority. > > (Think > > > of all the tools building Debian images, chroots, containers, etc., > > on > > > top of debootstrap/mmdebstrap/etc.) > > > > I'm not sure it's the case that most of those other systems install > > Priority: standard. Debootstrap certainly doesn't by itself, and I > > don't think the debuerreotype tool for building OCI images does either. > > In any case, your point still stands. I'll re-assign this to general > > for now, and we can discuss the options in a broader context. > > > > FWIW, we have added linux-sysctl-defaults to the sid/trixie VM images > > built by the cloud team. > > > > noah > > > > I think "Priority: important" is probably appropriate here? > > > > [2]https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debootstrap/-/blob/c019a546a37b9284f0503c955d0f198044a7e2f0/scripts/debian-common#L29 > > Then it's installed by default in standard / d-i, but not part of > > minbase, > > buildd, etc. > > (It wouldn't affect/do anything in most container images or runtimes > > anyhow, which is also an argument for it being harmless to include. 🤷) > > Hi kernel team. Per the earlier discussion in this bug, please raise > the priority of linux-sysctl-defaults to important in order to ensure > that it's present by default in typical Debian installations. > > Patch is attached.
I do not see explict voices against the changes, Cyril am I correct that this is fine as well from d-i point of view? I have applied the patch to our debian/latest branch but have *not* yet uploaded. Regards, Salvatore
