Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Francesco Riosa <vivo75@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:14:01
Message-Id: CAD6zcDyxic1LDFGtLbu6Ksi9Okq2ajn8UTr+Q1PMy-a3T4P8Cw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names by William Hubbs
1 2013/1/19 William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
2
3 > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:07:42AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
4 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
5 > > Hash: SHA256
6 > >
7 > > On 18/01/13 09:54 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
8 > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:33:13AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
9 > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
10 > > >>
11 > > >> On 18/01/13 07:24 AM, vivo75@×××××.com wrote:
12 > > >>> Since for servers predictable names are useful and for desktop
13 > > >>> (which usually have only one ethernet that never change) Is it
14 > > >>> possible to set desktop profiles to still use ethX, and base
15 > > >>> profile to use new naming scheme?
16 > > >>>
17 > > >>> For wireless situation may be different, many of them are
18 > > >>> external, could wireless be managed differently?
19 > > >>>
20 > > >>
21 > > >> In short, no. At least, not unless the functionality that is
22 > > >> currently a configure-time thing is changed into a
23 > > >> build-time/install-time thing controlled via a use flag.
24 > > >
25 > > > Actually,this is how I set you up by dropping the file in
26 > > > /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules.
27 > > >
28 > > > Nothing changes on your system unless you remove this file and do
29 > > > not have 70-persistent-net.rules.
30 > > >
31 > > > William
32 > > >
33 > >
34 > > ..right, but default behaviour can't be changed automatically
35 > > depending on what profile you're on, as vivo requested, since profiles
36 > > don't control configuration (just use flags)
37 >
38 > Right, and we have a policy against using use flags to control the
39 > installation of configuration files.
40 >
41 > vivo, what is your concern here exactly?
42 >
43 > William
44 >
45 > My concern was to make simple desktop users happy while leaving the
46 servers safe.
47 The answers given in the previous emails are satisfying, since they cover
48 exhaustively what is in place and what could be (or not) done.
49
50 Thanks,
51 Francesco