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