| 1 |
On 02/04/2013 22:31, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-04-02, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> No, you are stilling misunderstanding. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> He's not the only one. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> The news item goes to great lengths to explain that there is a new |
| 9 |
>> way and it is different from the old way. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I did grok that much. I had a 70-persistent-net.rules file that named |
| 12 |
> my three interfaces "eth0" "eth1" and "eth2" based on their MAC |
| 13 |
> addresses. After reading the news item and flameeyes blog, I was still |
| 14 |
> pretty much at a loss regarding what I was actually supposed to _do_. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> In Flameyes blog, he showed an example of using udev rules pretty much |
| 17 |
> identical to the ones I already had, so I couldn't figure out what was |
| 18 |
> different (other than the default interface names, which still aren't |
| 19 |
> really predictable). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> In the end, I just did the upgrade and rebooted. My existing rules |
| 22 |
> seemed to work fine: the interfaces came up with the same names as |
| 23 |
> before. So I gave up trying to figure it out... |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That is the expected result - you have explicit udev rules that lay out |
| 27 |
how you want every interface to be named, and udev did what you told it |
| 28 |
to do. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The issue at hand, for the most part, is what udev will do if you |
| 31 |
*don't* have explicit unambiguous rules, i.e. you leave it up to the |
| 32 |
software to make a decision. The new version is most likely going to do |
| 33 |
something different to what earlier versions did. That's not hard to |
| 34 |
understand. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
The trick with all this new udev stuff is to read what is coming out of |
| 37 |
the horse's mouth and ignore all the frenetic noise that the internet is |
| 38 |
spewing out. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 43 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives