| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:38:28 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> > Have you read the news item? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Yes. I found it rather confusing. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> It refers to a "new format" for rules, but the examples use the exact |
| 10 |
>> same format as the old rules. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Poor choice of terminology there, the format is the same only the chosen |
| 13 |
> namespace is different. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> It talks about how 80-net-name-slot.rules needs to be either an empty |
| 16 |
>> file or a synmlink to /dev/null if you want to disable the new naming |
| 17 |
>> scheme -- but that doesn't seem to be right. After the upgrade my |
| 18 |
>> 80-net-name-slot.rules file was neither an empty file nor a symlink to |
| 19 |
>> /dev/null, but I'm still getting the same old names. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Do you have a 70-persistent-net.rules file? That would override to give |
| 22 |
> the old names, which is why the news item tells you to change it |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> "If the system still has old network interface renaming rules in |
| 25 |
> /etc/udev/rules.d, like 70-persistent-net.rules, those will need |
| 26 |
> to be either modified or removed." |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I don't have any rules except the 80-* one installed by new udev and I still |
| 29 |
have the old names - and this has been the case now for 3 machines and I |
| 30 |
upgrade a 4th right now. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
>> > It explains why the file should be renamed and also why you should |
| 33 |
>> > change the names in the rules to not use ethN. |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
>> The only explanation I found was "the old way is now deprecated". |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> My bad, I thought that was covered in the news item, but it is left to |
| 38 |
> one of the linked pages to explain it. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
- Jörg |
Archives