On 02/04/2013 22:31, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2013-04-02, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No, you are stilling misunderstanding. > > He's not the only one. > >> The news item goes to great lengths to explain that there is a new >> way and it is different from the old way. > > I did grok that much. I had a 70-persistent-net.rules file that named > my three interfaces "eth0" "eth1" and "eth2" based on their MAC > addresses. After reading the news item and flameeyes blog, I was still > pretty much at a loss regarding what I was actually supposed to _do_. > > In Flameyes blog, he showed an example of using udev rules pretty much > identical to the ones I already had, so I couldn't figure out what was > different (other than the default interface names, which still aren't > really predictable). > > In the end, I just did the upgrade and rebooted. My existing rules > seemed to work fine: the interfaces came up with the same names as > before. So I gave up trying to figure it out... >
That is the expected result - you have explicit udev rules that lay out how you want every interface to be named, and udev did what you told it to do. The issue at hand, for the most part, is what udev will do if you *don't* have explicit unambiguous rules, i.e. you leave it up to the software to make a decision. The new version is most likely going to do something different to what earlier versions did. That's not hard to understand. The trick with all this new udev stuff is to read what is coming out of the horse's mouth and ignore all the frenetic noise that the internet is spewing out. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
