From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3275A1381F3 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 083BA21C068; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.182]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A94D21C068 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:04:37 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoKAG6Zu09FxIbQ/2dsb2JhbABEsnYDgRiBCIJWHHImJSQTiA6YUqE3i2KEAGIDiEKEfIdchV+IOoFYgwc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="210036332" Received: from 69-196-134-208.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([69.196.134.208]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2012 16:04:35 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:04:33 -0500 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:04:33 -0500 To: eudev list Subject: [eudev] Can 70-persistent-net.rules be optional? Message-ID: <20121216210433.GA10672@waltdnes.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: eudev mailing list X-BeenThere: eudev@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: eudev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 6a74af4e-bc75-4bac-802b-3a14a66816f0 X-Archives-Hash: 503db6399f5e8e727cdbb5f104b5a6b3 I'm not a C programmer, but I do have a laptop I can use for beta testing. Regarding Richard Yao's statement about 70-persistent-net.rules; I can see both sides of the issue, and some people are better off with and some are better off without. * In the Gentoo user forum, one item that achieved FAQ-level notoriety was people who had installed a new network card complaining that it didn't work in Gentoo when it worked fine in Windows. The smarter ones would run ifconfig and notice that they had eth0 and eth1. They were told to delete 70-persistent-net.rules, and they got their eth0 back. Since the machines came up fine without 70-persistent-net.rules, and 70-persistent-net.rules seemed to be the cause of a lot of traffic on the forum, many people probably submitted feature requests asking for the removal of 70-persistent-net.rules, leading to its removal. * The other side of the issue has people who have multi-card setups and need things to come up in the same configuration the same every time. Here's a compromise idea that should satisfy both groups... have eudev read and implement 70-persistent-net.rules, if it exists, just like it did in the past. But turn off the ability to *CREATE* a 70-persistent-net.rules file. Have a separate script or binary run manually by the admin to create it. This way, the admins with multi-card machines get their persistent rules, and users who don't want/need it won't trip over it. -- Walter Dnes