On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 04:28:16PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> I guess the following changes do kind of a job:
> etc/udev/rules.d/69-bootif.rules (inside the installer's initrd)
> ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="net", IMPORT{program}="bootif $attr{address}"
>
> Unfortunately, this seems to go a little too far. My test system comes
> up with the second interface being the bootif, so it's eth1 without
> these additions.
This seems to be the fault of the additional rule which gives the
impression that the rule is actually doing something. Even when I
replace the bootif script with a call to true, I get multiple stanzas
per interface in 70-persistent-net.rules.
Do I need to say in the 69-bootif.rules that this should be treated as
a no-op rule?
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110301155200.ga19...@nechayev.zugschlus.de
