| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Thomas D. <whissi@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Also, I cannot belief that I cannot overwrite |
| 6 |
>> "/lib/udev/rules.d/80-net-setup-link.rules" via "/etc/udev/rules.d"... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I don't see why not - from the news item: |
| 9 |
> So, to clarify, you can override the new .rules file or the .link file in /etc |
| 10 |
> but using the kernel parameter is the most consistent way. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Maybe I am wrong, but when talking about kernel parameter we are talking |
| 13 |
only about |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
net.ifnames= |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
right? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So with this parameter we can only disable the new naming, right? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But as said, I am using udev to name my interfaces -- the new kernel |
| 22 |
naming isn't my problem. I don't understand how this should help me. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
My fear is that all my routers and servers with multiple interfaces |
| 25 |
won't come up anymore after the upgrade because they don't have my |
| 26 |
custom names anymore because due to the new rule, udev didn't or failed |
| 27 |
to rename... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>> Don't get me wrong. Yes, I don't use systemd and I am a happy OpenRC |
| 31 |
>> user but I have no problems with systemd (as long as it doesn't affects |
| 32 |
>> me). But this upgrade seems to affect non-systemd users. |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> The only thing that changed is the location where a config setting is |
| 36 |
> stored. Nobody has to use systemd as a sysvinit replacement. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Have you read documentation? It is not about locations at all... my |
| 39 |
problem is that it seems like that I have to use a new syntax from |
| 40 |
systemd-udev when doing something in "/etc/systemd" but as said: I am |
| 41 |
using sys-fs/udev, I don't care about systemd... why should I learn |
| 42 |
systemd when I am only using udev? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
>> Wasn't Gentoo about choices? |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Well, we generally don't give users a choice in where config files are |
| 48 |
> installed. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
No, not locations. My choice was not to use systemd. Now a package, |
| 51 |
sys-fs/udev, turns into systemd-udev... |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Also: If it wouldn't be possible to keep sys-fs/udev as it was I |
| 54 |
wouldn't bother that much. But as said, Lars (Polynomial-C) showed us |
| 55 |
that we don't need to turn sys-fs/udev into systemd-udev... |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
So I am asking why we are doing that for people who don't use systemd? |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Polynomical-C doesn't uses much patches... no, the magic is in the |
| 60 |
ebuild. Upstream still supports the "old" usage... it is the Gentoo |
| 61 |
ebuild which turns the package into systemd-udev... |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
And that's what I meant when I said "give something 'back'": It should |
| 64 |
be possible to create an ebuild for systemd and non-systemd users. Yes, |
| 65 |
more maintenance is needed. But taking a package which was working fine |
| 66 |
for non-systemd users and transform it into a systemd package isn't nice |
| 67 |
and fair. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
You get my point? |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
-Thomas |
Archives