On 2013-03-31, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) <nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt> wrote: > On 2013-03-31, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 30/03/13 17:15, Tanstaafl wrote: >>> Ok, just read the new news item and the linked udev-guide wiki page >> >> You should probably also read: >> >> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/03/predictably-non-persistent-names >> >> and: >> >> >> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/03/predictable-persistently-non-mnemonic-names > > The feeling that I got while reading the first was exactly what the > second talks about. > > We - from what I understand - had scripts automatically generating the > name rules from MAC addresses, it's just that they generated stuff like > ethX. > > Can't we just keep these scripts around (even if this was something > provided by upstream and we would have to forge a new incarnation)? > > I mean, IMHO, net0, wl0, ... are much easier to deal with and understand > than something physically-based. They also avoid problems caused by > moving these cards around, or changes in the kernel drivers or BIOS, or > BIOS settings that eventually end up exposing cards in a different way. > > The problem with the old approach was *just* the name clash that > rendered the hacky approach unreliable. Maybe we could just fix the > issue by using non-clashing namespaces, instead of pushing a completely > different (and possibly less reliable) naming scheme by default.
Ok, after some chat on IRC, it seems that upstream made it rather non-trivial to have something like the old rule-generator, and that's why we can't simply move that from, e.g., ethX to, say, netX. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
