On 29 March 2013 16:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) <nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt>wrote:

> On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> wrote:
> > On 29/03/2013 12:34, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> >> Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb:
> >>> > If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, no matter how many
> kernel
> >>> > changes happen, it'll always be eth0.
> >> That was not true with the old persistent naming. One example which we
> >> encountered in #gentoo IRC was the split between e1000 and e1000e
> drivers
> >> which caused interfaces to change names.
> >
> > Okay let me re-qualify the statement:
> >
> > "If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, and I don't mess up with
> > it in userspace at all, no matter how many kernel changes happen, it'll
> > always be eth0".
> >
> > Yes, the previous persistent rules for udev would have messed that one
> > up when e1000e got split, or if you switched between the
> > Broadcom-provided driver to the kernel one or vice-versa. The deathforce
> > drivers come in mind as well.
>
> IMHO this is really relevant. It is annoying seeing how many people go
> "oh you *must not* use the old scheme, because it won't work".
>
> The new naming scheme does *not* prevent you from using eth0, users
> should really just be told they can *disable* udev rules (and told how
> to do it) if they are happy with the kernel name of their sole network
> card, instead of being told that they *must* upgrade to the new rules.
>
> The messages so far seem to imply that you can't have eth0. You *can*,
> but udev won't be able to do anything if the device appears as
> something else and there's already another eth0. If you don't already
> have eth0, the udev rules *will* work, even if your card is named in
> the eth namespace.
>
> The *only* thing that breaks is renaming network devices to names that
> are already in use inside the kernel namespaces.
>
>
> --
> Nuno Silva (aka njsg)
> http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
>
>
>
I sort of agree here. The news item is rather scary for people maintaining
remote boxes. Couldn't we just
preserve the old behavior with an opt-in for people who want to use this
new feature? Or am I reading the message wrong?
In my mind, the message says "either remove 70-* and setup 80-*" or your
system will end up broken.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang