On 28 Jul 2024 15:08 +0200, from erwan@rail.eu.org (Erwan David):

Le 28/07/2024 à 14:28, allan a écrit :

I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized.

[...] But in my view it is a bug to remove something else than
the symlink even with the same name

At the risk of repeating myself from elsewhere lately on this mailing
list.

This whole thread is about Debian _Unstable_.

Unstable can be EXACTLY what it says on the tin. _Sid breaks toys._
When Unstable breaks, as the saying goes, you get to keep both pieces.
(The value of having regular backups is not restricted to those
running Unstable.)

By all means, file a bug report against the relevant package so that
this can be tracked and fixed. (Actually, _please_ do, if one doesn't
already exist.) I agree that this should be fixed, preferably before
the change makes it into Testing. Posting on debian-user is not how
one files a bug report, however.

And posting on debian-user with a bombastic Subject line which implies
that this is a widespread issue when it really only seems to exist in
Unstable is, quite frankly, in my opinion at best dishonest.

--
Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
On 2024-07-28 at 10:13, Michael Kjörling wrote:

On 28 Jul 2024 15:08 +0200, from erwan@rail.eu.org (Erwan David):

Le 28/07/2024 à 14:28, allan a écrit :

I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized.

[...] But in my view it is a bug to remove something else than the
symlink even with the same name

At the risk of repeating myself from elsewhere lately on this
mailing list.

This whole thread is about Debian _Unstable_.

Unstable can be EXACTLY what it says on the tin. _Sid breaks toys._
When Unstable breaks, as the saying goes, you get to keep both
pieces. (The value of having regular backups is not restricted to
those running Unstable.)

FWIW: I'm running testing, not unstable, and I already have the procps
change.

I'm not sure I ever had the systemd-suite package which included the
symlink in question, but I do remember having the systemd-suite
changelog entry in question appear - via apt-list-changes - in upgrades
that I've already installed (although I'm not finding it now when I look
in my local changelogs).

Some parts of this, at least, aren't just in sid.

--
The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmamWIIACgkQBKk1jTQo MmsQzRAAoa/2B+jcZMYMCqWSXP2elM+5f5ZMAfQ/d3z7MH9RgF0uWY+VC3VDiYBr BBeaRhLyDe41LJjZ2teVsR6YfcZmeee5vo0Sf/wo3F73PsM/8KxhjO+APGbsKyWT eKEAvKKdBlD0B0d3eygSk4UTBxZlEOOU/8Ux6B8pHFuy2AxpcbieF8uy3IEE9qjc 5zfZbMz8VwDrsgWYzYKBm9R1UpK4f0O79Gcly50ACi0IbxLlcv5AVEjLveTZlrfV UNuACKRYyzFOff4MKtaJcxg/vTNu0K4yS0FrigmX9UGMuSTPLK6lgpRzhxjCTb4A tO52gzYVVCSUjmrRjyvwkviZDh0CqTYUt5r8sh91Sw/fs7MalGekb1GAykdzzhle E4qv2fsGe4XJ6BkSm8hYnCoW+B1A+J1O7YiUBBwadQPlYPzuhpqnjawqGv3rOHI+ Mq9PvUbXsubPn1QSlAmMX8lfEmMMQPeUcreUpaguCkVRjtRMmAOuJ6I3wxU29Zl7 WZTqmWDXyPkOkq8hKla345f3vIUZqjy9V7ParxGeffYgQ6gUB79XMWnOSwlycL2Q 8HHXO8F7YoNjXGZgpl9W27bFC1RNIKkcEIo4xEz0UaET7+iEHa6qMiVgTsFUgHw7 fz2e0xqbKsXAOuXvc4Jn18/4MDMB

On 2024-07-28 14:13:09 +0000, Michael Kj÷rling wrote:

And posting on debian-user with a bombastic Subject line which implies
that this is a widespread issue when it really only seems to exist in Unstable is, quite frankly, in my opinion at best dishonest.

No, the breakage was done *on purpose* (together with the lack
of announcement).

--
Vincent LefΦvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 01:13:10 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

On 2024-07-28 14:13:09 +0000, Michael Kj÷rling wrote:

And posting on debian-user with a bombastic Subject line which implies
that this is a widespread issue when it really only seems to exist in Unstable is, quite frankly, in my opinion at best dishonest.

No, the breakage was done *on purpose* (together with the lack
of announcement).

All I can tell you is that you should post bug reports on things that
you believe are broken. (Yes, I know you've already made some. If there
are more issues that you feel are not addressed, then maybe you should
post more.)

Ranting on debian-user is extremely unlikely to get anything changed.
You might warn other users that there's an issue, which can be a great
service to the community, but having done that already, continuing to
harp on the same issue repeatedly seems less than productive.

In the interests of posting something *useful*, here's a timeline.
As I understand it, here's what's happened so far:

2024-06-23: bug #1074156 filed against package procps
procps: Depend or Recommend linux-sysctl-defaults
Bug fixed by upload, closed.

2024-07-11: procps (unstable) upload: /etc/sysctl.conf is "removed"
(but not when upgrading)
Closes #1074156

2024-07-12: bug #1076190 filed against package systemd
Installs dangling symlink /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf
Bug fixed by upload, closed.

2024-07-24: systemd (unstable) upload: /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf
symlink is removed (for upgrades also)
Closes #1076190

2024-07-26: this thread is started on debian-user

2024-07-26: bug #1077184 filed against package systemd
systemd: /etc/sysctl.conf is no longer read
Bug marked as wontfix, closed.

2024-07-26: bug #1077187 filed against package procps
procps: please drop/replace the obsolete sysctl.conf(5) man page
Still open.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-07-28 20:01:35 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

In the interests of posting something *useful*, here's a timeline.
As I understand it, here's what's happened so far:

2024-06-23: bug #1074156 filed against package procps
procps: Depend or Recommend linux-sysctl-defaults
Bug fixed by upload, closed.

2024-07-11: procps (unstable) upload: /etc/sysctl.conf is "removed"
(but not when upgrading)
Closes #1074156

2024-07-12: bug #1076190 filed against package systemd
Installs dangling symlink /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf
Bug fixed by upload, closed.

2024-07-24: systemd (unstable) upload: /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf
symlink is removed (for upgrades also)
Closes #1076190

2024-07-26: this thread is started on debian-user

2024-07-26: bug #1077184 filed against package systemd
systemd: /etc/sysctl.conf is no longer read
Bug marked as wontfix, closed.

2024-07-26: bug #1077187 filed against package procps
procps: please drop/replace the obsolete sysctl.conf(5) man page
Still open.

No, this thread was started *after* bug #1077184 (which I reported)
was closed as wontfix and *after* I reported bug #1077187.

--
Vincent LefΦvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)