Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #84920 > unrolled thread

Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2024-12-22 16:10 +0100
    Processed: Re: Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to  Priority: important "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2024-12-22 16:10 +0100
    Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2024-12-22 16:40 +0100
      Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2024-12-22 16:50 +0100
    Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-01-01 07:20 +0100
      Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2025-01-01 13:10 +0100
        Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-01-01 14:10 +0100

#84920 — Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

Thanks
noah

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#84921 — Processed: Re: Bug#1090811: please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + patch
Bug #1090811 [src:linux-base] please set linux-sysctl-defaults to Priority: important
Added tag(s) patch.

-- 
1090811: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1090811
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84922

Hi,

On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 10:02:02AM -0500, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> 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.

> diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
> +Priority: important

I *think* you'll also neeed to ask ftpmaster to update their
overrides for this to become effective, and the request can be made
immediately, even if the package is not updated yet.

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84923

On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 04:30:06PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> > diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
> > +Priority: important
> 
> I *think* you'll also neeed to ask ftpmaster to update their
> overrides for this to become effective, and the request can be made
> immediately, even if the package is not updated yet.

Yes, I think you're right. In fact, I think that's the only place that
actually matters.  For consistency it should happen in the package as
well.  The ftpmaster override request is in #1091099

noah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84990

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84993

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2025-01-01):
> 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?

Sure, we'll live with whatever consensus is found. It could be tricky
for us to change a package's Priority in the middle of a release for us,
but that's over now. :)

> I have applied the patch to our debian/latest branch but have *not*
> yet uploaded.

Feel free to go ahead. The really important part is not the contents of
the package metadata though, but the override on the ftp-master side:
Noah mentioned #1091099, and that's fine on the debian-boot side as far
as I know.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84995

Hi Cyril,

On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 01:05:35PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2025-01-01):
> > 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?
> 
> Sure, we'll live with whatever consensus is found. It could be tricky
> for us to change a package's Priority in the middle of a release for us,
> but that's over now. :)

Yes right, I saw the d-i alpha announce. It looks to me there was
consensus on making it priority important. At least there was nobody
objecting explicitly.

> > I have applied the patch to our debian/latest branch but have *not*
> > yet uploaded.
> 
> Feel free to go ahead. The really important part is not the contents of
> the package metadata though, but the override on the ftp-master side:
> Noah mentioned #1091099, and that's fine on the debian-boot side as far
> as I know.

Ack I have done the upload side package. 

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web