| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 05:00:17PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-04-07, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >>>> Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, |
| 7 |
> >>>> nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, |
| 8 |
> >>> |
| 9 |
> >>> Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means |
| 10 |
> >>> no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no |
| 11 |
> >>> UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively |
| 12 |
> >>> 'empty'. |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then |
| 15 |
> >> the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as |
| 16 |
> >> no content at all. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it |
| 19 |
> > was kind of silly to take quite it so literally... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other |
| 22 |
> parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can |
| 23 |
> tell the difference? ;) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> > Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of |
| 26 |
> > nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide |
| 27 |
> > whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> It's entirely possible for udev (or any other program) to check |
| 30 |
> whether a file is empty or not and behave differently depending on |
| 31 |
> that test. And if it is explicitly stated that something depends on a |
| 32 |
> file being "empty", that's what I assume was indended. Of course it's |
| 33 |
> possible to determine via experimentation that "nothing but comments" |
| 34 |
> produces the same behavior as "empty". Of course we all figured that |
| 35 |
> out after we realized that udev wasn't behaving as was described in |
| 36 |
> the news entry and started reading other documentation. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I'll give you all one more to chew on ... this LAN has 5 comps running udev, |
| 39 |
upgraded from 171 > 197 > 200, and NONE of them EVER has this mysterious |
| 40 |
/etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules file. If it was there sometime during |
| 41 |
these upgrades, and was removed, it was automatically removed and not manually |
| 42 |
by me using rm to do so. |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Happy Penguin Computers >') |
| 45 |
126 Fenco Drive ( \ |
| 46 |
Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ |
| 47 |
support@×××××××××××××××××××××.com |
| 48 |
662-269-2706 662-205-6424 |
| 49 |
http://happypenguincomputers.com/ |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. |
| 52 |
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? |
| 53 |
A: Top-posting. |
| 54 |
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting |
Archives