On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 24, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
>
> > Why? If I need to remove or add an adapter, it breaks all the networking.
> I
> Because you are supposed to keep the names stable by an appropriate
> configuration of the virtualization system.
> Creati
On Dec 24, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> Are you telling me that the interfaces will always come up in the same order
> every time?
Yes, this is why persistent rules are not strictly needed.
> I'm just trying to understand how the conclusion was reached, it's not
Discussions on the upstream mailing li
On Dec 24, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> Why? If I need to remove or add an adapter, it breaks all the networking. I
Because you are supposed to keep the names stable by an appropriate
configuration of the virtualization system.
Creating persistent rules by default would annoy the users of the common
c
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 23, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
>
> > /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules is not being generated
> automatically as specified in the documentation. I've added NICs to a
> machine at different times and none are triggering the automati
On Dec 23, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules is not being generated
> automatically as specified in the documentation. I've added NICs to a machine
> at different times and none are triggering the automatic generation of the
> persistent rules file. This is a cl
Package: udev
Version: 149-1
Severity: important
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules is not being generated automatically
as specified in the documentation. I've added NICs to a machine at different
times and none are triggering the automatic generation of the persistent rules
file. This
6 matches
Mail list logo
