[systemd-devel] [PATCH] man: fix description of sysctl.d order

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:14:24AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kay Sievers <kay at vrfy.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Colin Guthrie <gmane at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
> 
> >> I only just rejigged things for the last time this flipped around and
> >> now sysctl has decided to buck the trend of the other tools and follow a
> >> "later file has priority"? I think consistency is good here (even if
> >> conceptually, a later file overriding an earlier one "feels" better.
> >
> > Yes, and later-override-earlier is by far the bigger trend. :)
> >
> >> The order was previously "fixed" such that earlier files win for several
> >> tools binfmt, tmpfiles
> >> modules-load
> 
> Oh, what a mess. Quite a few man pages described pretty much the
> opposite of what is done, not only in that file this patch fixed.
> 
> I now hopefully fixed all of the man pages to describe what the code
> does. Now we have:
> 
>   binfmt - the last entry wins, people are allowed to overwrite earlier stuff
>   tmpfiles - the first entry wins; uniqueness required, everything else an error
>   sysctl - the last entry wins, people are allowed overwrite earlier stuff
>   presets - the first entry wins, the search just stops there
>   modules-load - there is no order, it's just a set of names that gets applied
Hm, and .service and service.d/*.conf? I think last entry wins also.

> There is no strictly consistent behavior between the different tools,
> and I think for good reason, the do different things, some assign
> values, some can't merge entries and require uniqueness, soem are just
> lists; all seem to have their reason to do it in the way that makes
> the most sense.

Zbyszek