On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:49:56PM +0300, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
On Apr 24, 2012 1:29 AM, "Eric Bélanger" <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
The procps project didn't had any new release for a while and the current package use a dozen of patches to fix miscellenaous things. I'm thinking about switching to procps-ng[1]. Procps-ng is a fork of procps by Debian, Fedora and openSUSE. Gentoo is also using procps-ng (although, like Debian, the package is still named procps).
I also intend to replace the home made sysctl.conf that we currently provide by the upstream version of that file.
Any comments, objections?
+1
Objection to the now-shipped /etc/sysctl.conf file, so I'm giving a -1 signoff here. It moved my existing file to a .pacsave, and the defaults are total shit, not to mention the file is a formatting nightmare. Some lowlights:
# see the evil packets in your log files net/ipv4/conf/all/log_martians=1
# makes you vulnerable or not :-) net/ipv4/conf/all/accept_redirects=0 net/ipv4/conf/all/accept_source_route=0 net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts =1
# This limits PID values to 4 digits, which allows tools like ps # to save screen space. kernel/pid_max=10000
+1.
Let's keep the existing default sysctl.conf from procps.
I'm not a fan of this either, but keeping the original config file means that we just rename procps-ng as procps, no? Any other way will result in /etc/sysctl.conf being renamed with .pacsave. d