Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said: > On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 15:04 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said: > > > > I should remember to check common bugs, but since I follow this list > > > > I'm > > > > normally familiar with the existing issues. But after looking at the > > > > entry, it wouldn't have been helpful to my case since it says there > > > > shouldn't be any issues. > > > > > > Yeah. We need to fix that. The problem is that now I know it *does* > > > cause some issues, but I still don't know *what* issues. Bill was > > > supposed to be looking into it and updating the bug, but unless I missed > > > a comment, he didn't get around to it yet. > > > > I belive the patches posted in that bug will make the behavior better, and > > more predictable. However, I don't maintain either component in question, > > and it involves changing their behavior, so while I *could* just > > provenpackager the changes in, I figure I'd wait for a go-ahead from the > > actual maintainers. > > That's kind of orthogonal, though. We *definitely* need to fix it going > forward, and that should take priority, but I was also hoping - and > thought you had kindly volunteered - that we could determine with as > much detail as possible what the exact status and consequences of the > F19 situation were, and update the bug report and commonbugs page with > that information.
Apologies, I haven't had time to do investigation. The note in CommonBugs is certainly correct as far as anaconda using biosdevname by default still - if there are other consequences where different names are written to the interface configuration by anaconda than what are assigned with udev/systemd, that would exacerbate things further. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
