| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On 2013-04-03, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Have you read the news item? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Yes. I found it rather confusing. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It refers to a "new format" for rules, but the examples use the exact |
| 12 |
> same format as the old rules. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It talks about how 80-net-name-slot.rules needs to be either an empty |
| 15 |
> file or a synmlink to /dev/null if you want to disable the new naming |
| 16 |
> scheme -- but that doesn't seem to be right. After the upgrade my |
| 17 |
> 80-net-name-slot.rules file was neither an empty file nor a symlink to |
| 18 |
> /dev/null, but I'm still getting the same old names. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
same for me. I followed the upgrade guide and removed any 70-* files, |
| 21 |
renamed the net.eth0 link to the new scheme net.enp0s1 just to to find out |
| 22 |
that the kernel could not bring up a network with the such a device. The |
| 23 |
machine booted fine after using eth0 instead again. One a second machine I |
| 24 |
kept eth0 immediately and it booted without problems afterwards. |
| 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 |
And the new name simply did not work. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
- Jörg |
Archives