-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Martin,
On 09/18/15 04:36, Martin Pitt wrote: > > Ah, I see. With the current naming system you have to disable the predictable > names differerently now, either by booting with net.ifnames=0 or by creating > an empty /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-setup-link.rules or (more > elegantly/reliably) set different name(s) in some /etc/systemd/network/*.link > file (see man systemd.link). > I haven't tried it yet, but I could live with that. However, this still doesn't fix the unpredictable udev confi- guration due to the run-once-and-never-again code in udev's postinst script. - From what I saw the main reason behind renaming NICs was an "unpredictable and unstable" naming scheme in the old udev configuration. Well, I get "eth0" or "ens3" for a new(!) virtio NIC, depending upon the hardware configuration I had when udev was upgraded. Wouldn't you agree that this is exactly what this NIC renaming code was trying to avoid? > > It's not bad code -- it's right going forward, for new installations. But > while it's a bug fix, it breaks existing installations which is why in > general we need to keep the previous (unstable) names on upgrades. > I have still hosts that were continuously upgraded since Lenny, now waiting to be migrated to Jessie. How long are you going to support the old NIC naming? Regards Harri -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV+6NgAAoJEAqeKp5m04HLjlcH+wRC3I8DvUQZvUSLc0KnnGKA 4aqAB8txSncIA2R/3T3xvTEd1AgT5qoEDyAD+KW624RVNQ30LngA5kX6qsie7K4o nlpdhtJW3NLbHa85hpFSZMz39qa3+13vDb04J3wrEbhyNutjRxWRQ4UDv/fZgFhg ecIWuAMTdu77p3X8hvuFBgg7b4OWgp2iAht4te8+iySXlIkAxb6dZLk5FSXKVn9l mKJdFQCXGYuSQS3y8xodAFxmhfG6axr0lQzKKlXFYXqY1d+Q0SrwaQsIcxBsUOeV wVzraEngTJ5ve/Ng+jS39P/5LD5W/c2y9bkYAGmyRt/GMv/Wvlv2ls/Y+yVmvcQ= =Js4q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
