On Sat 27 Jul 2024 at 09:26:49 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On 2024-07-26, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > The /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink has been removed > > > (currently in unstable) *without any announcement*, so that > > > the /etc/sysctl.conf file (which is still documented, BTW) > > > is no longer read. > > > > > > So, be careful if you have important settings there (security...). > > I kept wondering: what does this have to do with the Subject > header? The files in question belong to the procps package, not > to systemd, right? > > As it turns out, it's a combination of the two packages. In bookworm, > /etc/sysctl.conf is a Conffile of the procps package, and > /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf is a regular file (non-Conffile) of > the systemd package. > > In unstable, apparently, *both* of them are gone. > > <https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/s/systemd/systemd_256.4-2_changelog> > says: > [ Luca Boccassi ] > * Drop /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf symlink procps no longer ships > /etc/sysctl.conf (Closes: #1076190) > > while > <https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/p/procps/procps_4.0.4-5_changelog> > says: > procps (2:4.0.4-5) unstable; urgency=medium > > * Add Recommends: linux-sysctl-defaults Closes: #1074156 > * Remove /etc/sysctl.conf as using /etc/sysctl.d/*.conf is better > * Updated /etc/sysctld.d/README > > So it seems to have been a removal performed at the whim of the procps > maintainer. Perhaps there was discussion somewhere amongst the developers > that I'm not aware of. > > It does seem like the sort of change that would belong in the NEWS > file, but I don't see it in > <https://salsa.debian.org/debian/procps/-/blob/master/debian/NEWS?ref_type=heads>.
I'd agree (it's a NEWS bug), but the file is AFAICT functionless. If you've added any functionality to it, then I'd expect upgrading procps to give the usual dialogue whenever a conffile has been modified. But if you have installed systemd without procps in the past, did that just result in a dangling symlink? As I have both systemd and procps installed, I'm not sure what happens in this case. As far as moving the file is concerned, I would have thought this was just part of the evolution from big-file-under-/etc/ to individual-snippets-under-/etc/foo.d/ that's been happening for years. And I can't find another instance on my system of a /etc/foo.d/NN-bar → /etc/bar.conf where the symlink has a sequence number. (IOW bar.conf doesn't "know" that it's part of an ordered collection of configurations.) Cheers, David.
