but
again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow
for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic.
It's a welcome option but an important question seems to be; Why wasn't
this picked up in the dev cycle?.
This reminds me of udisks 8 months ago losing
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 02:11:43AM +, Steven J. Long wrote:
Christopher Head wrote:
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
There is a way for users to opt out if we default this to on, but I
think the new naming scheme has advantages over the traditional eth*
wlan* etc names.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Steven J. Long
sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
Christopher Head wrote:
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
There is a way for users to opt out if we default this to on, but I
think the new naming scheme has advantages over the traditional eth*
Christopher Head wrote:
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
There is a way for users to opt out if we default this to on, but I
think the new naming scheme has advantages over the traditional eth*
wlan* etc names.
I think it should be taken with a grain of salt. The page mentions
On 2013-01-10, Daniel Campbell wrote:
On 01/09/2013 04:13 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
as you probably know by now, udev-197 has hit the tree.
This new version implements a new feature called predictable
network interface names [1], which I have currently turned off for
live systems,
