[arch-dev-public] Moving from procps to procps-ng?

[Dave Reisner]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
> >> On Apr 24, 2012 1:29 AM, "Eric Bélanger" <snowmaniscool at 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