Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine.
I reset the system and poof!!!! Here I am at the co-location on Sunday
at 9:00am.
Serves me right I guess.....
I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the
machine they get regenerated.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
N.
On 4/7/13, Heiko Zinke <ma...@rabuju.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Jarry wrote:
>>
>>> On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
>>>>
>>>>> It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people
>>>>> who
>>>>> blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
>>>>> announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
>>>>> freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and
>>>>> started
>>>>> making shit up in their heads.
>>>>
>>>> Steady on, old chap! By "it" I was meaning the general
>>>> inconvenience
>>>> all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
>>>> everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't
>>>> have
>>>> to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
>>>
>>> The problem is, news item is not correct! I followed it
>>> and yet finished with server having old network name (eth0).
>>> Problem was the point 4. in news item, which is not quite clear:
>>>
>>> -----
>>> 4. predictable network interface names:
>>> If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file
>>> or a symlink to /dev/null, the new names will be disabled and
>>> the kernel will do all the interface naming...
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
>>> nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
>>> which basically did the same thing as empty file: disabled
>>> new network names. Unfortunatelly, I found it just after
>>> screwed reboot. But I did everything I found in news item:
>>> checked and verified that file was not symlink to /dev/null
>>> and that it was not empty (1667 bytes does not seem to me
>>> to be empty file).
>>>
>>> As I wrote previously, I am pretty sure I never created this
>>> file manually so it must have been created by som previous
>>> udev-version. So I finished up with similar problem as OP:
>>> after rebooting I did not find interface I expected. The
>>> only difference is I expected already interface with new
>>> name, and OP is probably the old one...
>>
>> You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines.
>>
>
> Same confusion here, but this paragraph saved my ass
> ------
> In a normal new installation there are no files in /etc/udev/rules.d
> and if you haven't edited any files you have in there, you should most
> likely backup and delete them all if they don't belong to any packages.
> ------
>
> So I checked and just removed all files. luckily everything went fine
> :)
>
>>>
>>> So I must add my point to complaining about news item
>>> not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
>
> heiko
>
>
