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 EF4BA1383B6 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95CCE21C12A; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:37:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC1F21C07E for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout-eu.gmx.com ([10.1.101.213]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MdYA6-1Tcbzm2br2-00PMnj for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:36:38 +0100 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2013 04:36:38 -0000 Received: from 103.70-40-225.netnet.net (EHLO [192.168.1.144]) [70.40.225.103] by mail.gmx.com (mp-eu013) with SMTP; 10 Jan 2013 05:36:38 +0100 X-Authenticated: #128128167 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19k4X5RrVVktcubYgbI4sloBHSH0ocjQ/n+9yjMNz j0CCgVJ7XBJ2YD Message-ID: <50EE4554.5090206@gmx.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:36:36 -0600 From: Daniel Campbell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names References: <20130109221310.GA1749@linux1> <50EE41DB.8050403@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: 573d84d4-d2f9-4f40-a0ea-3ffa998c53fe X-Archives-Hash: f6bc44f2d6681283c0e6d8b578fded3b On 01/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> So long as users retain the choice of keeping eth* or wlan*, no >> complaints from me. I (and others) came to Gentoo to get away from >> systemd, and this smells of a systemd-ism. Will eudev be pursuing this >> as well? > > Keep in mind that this is a udev announcement, not a eudev > announcement. Udev is generally going to follow upstream, so if > avoiding systemd is your main goal in life you probably will want to > stick with eudev, which might or might not adopt this feature. > > You might want to take discussion of eudev planned features to its > dedicated list. > > Rich > My apologies. It wasn't my intent to derail the discussion with my simple yes/no question.