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 735FC138010 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A0CDEE07C6; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:18:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4EBDE07C2 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:18:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.185.119.106] (85-76-135-128-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.135.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 670F033C2F0 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51578EC0.60004@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 04:17:52 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130327 Thunderbird/17.0.4 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] Re: Request of news item review: 2013-03-29-udev-predictable-network-interface-names.en.txt References: <51554C37.4000508@gentoo.org> <51556C3A.1020803@gentoo.org> <515570F2.2030902@flameeyes.eu> <515571D8.7030008@gentoo.org> <5155749A.5010302@flameeyes.eu> <51557B1B.9020408@gentoo.org> <51557D48.5010008@flameeyes.eu> <51558704.20904@gentoo.org> <20130331010601.GA965@ca.inter.net> In-Reply-To: <20130331010601.GA965@ca.inter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: db0bcbe7-eb0a-4910-8500-aed91edf569c X-Archives-Hash: 63b1a78ad5cd380bdd7c92ca01608035 On 31/03/13 04:06, Philip Webb wrote: > 130329 Samuli Suominen wrote: >> Attached new version again, more generic than before. > > I find this difficult to decipher. Who is it aimed at ? > > I've just updated to Udev 200 . Following the news item, > I renamed /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules : > my script to start my I/net connection with DHCP failed. > I restored the file to its old name & all works as usual : > it has 'NAME="eth0"'. Aimed to everyone and it already answers your questions. I can answer them differently here again, but if you read the news item, this all is there: If kernel assigns eth0 to first network interface (driver/module) then you can't rename to eth0, thus the rule you have is likely superflous and it doesn't matter if you delete it or not -- you are currently using "random" kernel names What it might do is interfere with enabling of the new networking, so you should propably symlink /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules to /dev/null and delete the 70-persistent-net.rules and the behavior of your system stays exactly as it's when you are writing this now, using random kernel names, but if it's an system with only 1 network card, it propably doesn't matter much as eth0 gets always used (almost always) Nothing is stopping you from leaving out the symlink either and migrating to the new name despite using only 1 network card either, it's still more reliable than the kernel names The logic really isn't that hard... It's documented everywhere... :-(