On Jun 25, Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> wrote: > If the priority of the goals is realigned to make sense, then we must > eliminate any solution that satisfies the no-state-file goal if it does > not also satisfy the human-usable goal. If this brings us back to where > we currently are, so be it. But please do not add significant cognitive > burden on the humans who must use the interface names just to get rid of > a state file. Eliminating the state file is not worth it. Please read the precedent thread which explained why we cannot continue supporting the old mechanism. If the new names trouble you then you can just manually configure new ones.
-- ciao, Marco
pgpxJVBtfmJpT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
