| 1 |
On 01/26/2013 10:30 AM, Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 2 |
> I have read the news item and still have questions. The news item |
| 3 |
> covers several points. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1. remove udev-postmount: |
| 6 |
> I did this but worry that I now cannot reboot until I upgrade |
| 7 |
> udev. Is that correct? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
A reasonable question and I don't know the answer, but you can get |
| 10 |
that file back by re-emerging your existing version of udev first. |
| 11 |
You can always remove it later after everything is working okay, |
| 12 |
which is what I did. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> 3. Predictable network interface names. |
| 15 |
> I have the problematic udev rule. |
| 16 |
> Specifically 70-persistent-net.rules has (on one line) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", |
| 19 |
> ATTR{address}=="00:1e:c9:48:f9:a0", ATTR{type}=="1", |
| 20 |
> KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0" |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I read the bug report, but it is not as clear as I would like. |
| 23 |
> Is it true that I can change my file to simply |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", |
| 26 |
> ATTR{address}=="00:1e:c9:48:f9:a0", ATTR{type}=="1", |
| 27 |
> KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="net0" |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> That is just change the NAME from eth0 to net0 ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I kept my persistent-net rules and I still have a working eth0. Am |
| 32 |
I politically incorrect to run this way? Dunno (and don't care ;) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> The news item does not mention the problem of moving files |
| 35 |
> from /usr/lib/udev/rules.d to /lib/udev/rules.d. Am I correct in |
| 36 |
> believing that we still need one of the equivalents of |
| 37 |
> equery belongs -n /usr/lib/udev | xargs emerge -pv |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Yes -- if you still have any files in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d you should |
| 40 |
re-emerge those packages so they are re-installed in /lib/udev/rules.d |
| 41 |
before rebooting. At least, I know that's what I should have done :) |
Archives