| 1 |
On Saturday 21 July 2007, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 21:28 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 22:22 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Is there a common bug to report snags to? I've hit one: |
| 5 |
> > > /etc/init.d/net.eth0 used to be a symlink to net.lo. After |
| 6 |
> > > installing, it was gone (I figure it went with baselayout-1). |
| 7 |
> > > Luckily, I have direct console access, otherwise the machine |
| 8 |
> > > would have been gone after the reboot. Definitely something to |
| 9 |
> > > yell about during merging. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > We don't ship with net.eth0 because there is no guarantee an interface |
| 12 |
> > called eth0 exists. net.lo (net.lo0 in *BSDs) always exists so we just |
| 13 |
> > ship that. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> One very good idea would be to get udev to create any net links that do |
| 16 |
> not exist to net.lo |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Then we truly have plug and play :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
indeed, that'd be sleeky and sexy ... go file a bug ;) |
| 21 |
-mike |
Archives