Hello,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:21:15AM +0100, Lo??c Minier wrote:
Thanks for your report and detailed information, and sorry for not
getting back to you earlier; from your data above, it seems like it is
either an udev or a kernel bug. I'm tentatively reassigning this to
udev seeing
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:44:01PM +0100, Ard van Breemen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:21:15AM +0100, Lo??c Minier wrote:
from your data above, it seems like it is either an udev or a
kernel bug. I'm tentatively reassigning this to udev
But from the config from lionel I guess people
On Jan 16, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the udev package could ship a different
z45_persistent-net-generator.rules, that does not assume uniqueness
of MAC addresses (as suggested by Ard) _and_ leaves vlan interfaces
alone. (If they are renamed at all, the ifupdown
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:16:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jan 16, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and then I realised that true interfaces have PHYSDEVPATH,
PHYSDEVBUS and PHYSDEVDRIVER in their environment. So we can use:
This is what DRIVERS==?* is for.
Ah well, yes.
reassign 457196 udev
stop
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
No, not exactly either, I have reproduced the problem on i386
machines, too. Here are the results:
arch kernel udev result
amd64 2.6.23-1-amd64 0.114-2 bug
i386
severity 457196 normal
tag 457196 unreproducible,moreinfo
thanks
On Dec 20, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, not exactly either, I have reproduced the problem on i386
machines, too. Here are the results:
This works for everybody else, so it's reasonable to assume that you
broke
On Jan 14, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about with generated rules. Is
that /etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.rules ? They contain the
Yes. They look correct.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:00:37AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 20, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, not exactly either, I have reproduced the problem on i386
machines, too. Here are the results:
This works for everybody else, so it's reasonable to assume that you
broke
Package: vlan
Version: 1.9-3
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
When trying to add a new vlan interface, the interface is named with a
suffix of _rename, e.g. vlan5_rename or eth1.5_rename. This means
that the /etc/network/interfaces entry won't work, ifupdown cannot
find the
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:33:39PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
When trying to add a new vlan interface, the interface is named with a
suffix of _rename,
This starts to look like an amd64 or 64-bit specific bug, because that
bug does not happen on my i386 machines.
--
Lionel
--
To
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:33:39PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
When trying to add a new vlan interface, the interface is named with a
suffix of _rename,
This starts to look like an amd64 or 64-bit specific bug, because
11 matches
Mail list logo
