Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's
quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course
neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks
Michael.
>> If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try "dhclient
>> $interface_name". If they're supposed to be statically configured, try
>> using ifconfig to configure them manually.
Now that I have internet connection, I am not sure what my line of
action should be.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis <sym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
