Re: [systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
'Twas brillig, and Jason A. Donenfeld at 21/02/14 16:12 did gyre and gimble: To clarify things: 1. Arch's script deals with 80-net-setup-link.rules 2. freedesktop.org wiki followed suit and added that suggestion 3. Others have said elsewhere that the proper way to do this is actually to override 99-default.link instead. 4. Gentoo went with number 3. Now: 5. Can numbers 1 and 2 update to the suggestion of 3? Feel free to update 2. I only did a naive find/replace on the wiki, but agree that 99-default.link is the correct place. Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 05:12:56PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: To clarify things: 1. Arch's script deals with 80-net-setup-link.rules We (Arch) made a decision back when the persistent naming was added to make it opt-in by masking 80-net-name-slot.rules in /etc. Now, if the 209 upgrade comes around and 80-net-name-slot.rules still exists in /etc, we just rename it. We make no assumptions about the contents of that file. If the user added their own naming rules to that file, we have absolutely no surefire way of determining what the net effect of those rules are, and what they might translate to, functionally, in 99-default.link. 2. freedesktop.org wiki followed suit and added that suggestion 3. Others have said elsewhere that the proper way to do this is actually to override 99-default.link instead. 4. Gentoo went with number 3. Now: 5. Can numbers 1 and 2 update to the suggestion of 3? So, no, 1 won't be changed. Comparing a post_upgrade action to a wiki page is an odd choice, anyways. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote: I've now added a paragraph about this change to NEWS. Not sure what to do in the Fedora package though. Why not do the same as in the Arch package? Are there any drawbacks? I thought that should cover backwards compatibility just fine? -t ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:45:09AM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote: I've now added a paragraph about this change to NEWS. Not sure what to do in the Fedora package though. Why not do the same as in the Arch package? Are there any drawbacks? I thought that should cover backwards compatibility just fine? Sure, in the common case it'll work fine. But in principle someone could have written 82-my-own-rules.rules file, and now it has lower priority than the new config file. The rules files - their priority, naming, and semantics - form an interface which must be kept stable (or versioned in a meaningful way) like the programming interfaces and the D-Bus interfaces. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com wrote: Hey guys, This commit caught me by surprise: http://git.zx2c4.com/systemd/commit/?id=daeb71a36a98834664e4d95773a3629b746f4db8 It wasn't in the NEWS or the mailing list post for 209, so when updating I encountered a bit of unexpected behavior. I see that I can disable persistent names using net.ifnames=0 in my kernel command line. Still not certain what the equivalent of the udev rule override is, though. Yeah, that should have been in the NEWS. Sorry about that. This is what we do in Arch to preserve the behavior form v208: https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/systemd.install?h=packages/systemd#n65. Cheers, Tom ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:24:58PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com wrote: Hey guys, This commit caught me by surprise: http://git.zx2c4.com/systemd/commit/?id=daeb71a36a98834664e4d95773a3629b746f4db8 It wasn't in the NEWS or the mailing list post for 209, so when updating I encountered a bit of unexpected behavior. I see that I can disable persistent names using net.ifnames=0 in my kernel command line. Still not certain what the equivalent of the udev rule override is, though. Yeah, that should have been in the NEWS. Sorry about that. This is what we do in Arch to preserve the behavior form v208: https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/systemd.install?h=packages/systemd#n65. It should still be added... Lots of people look at NEWS in the web git interface, or long after the release. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
On 21/02/14 17:37, Colin Guthrie wrote: 'Twas brillig, and Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek at 21/02/14 13:58 did gyre and gimble: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:24:58PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com wrote: Hey guys, This commit caught me by surprise: http://git.zx2c4.com/systemd/commit/?id=daeb71a36a98834664e4d95773a3629b746f4db8 It wasn't in the NEWS or the mailing list post for 209, so when updating I encountered a bit of unexpected behavior. I see that I can disable persistent names using net.ifnames=0 in my kernel command line. Still not certain what the equivalent of the udev rule override is, though. Yeah, that should have been in the NEWS. Sorry about that. This is what we do in Arch to preserve the behavior form v208: https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/systemd.install?h=packages/systemd#n65. It should still be added... Lots of people look at NEWS in the web git interface, or long after the release. I updated the wiki page: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames Col udev/rules.d/80-net-setup-link.rules is only a trigger for systemd/network/99-default.link.rules where the actual order of preference is recorded wouldn't it be better to override the actual configuration, where you can easily change the order of preference the interfaces get renamed to, than the dummy trigger? because the upstream wiki was updated to mention the .rules, then someone changed my instructions here: https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgradediff=110279oldid=110235 and that looks like an regression, rather than improvement, to me can we record the overriding of 99-default.link instead of 80-net-setup-link.rules, please? - Samuli ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
To clarify things: 1. Arch's script deals with 80-net-setup-link.rules 2. freedesktop.org wiki followed suit and added that suggestion 3. Others have said elsewhere that the proper way to do this is actually to override 99-default.link instead. 4. Gentoo went with number 3. Now: 5. Can numbers 1 and 2 update to the suggestion of 3? ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone
Hey guys, This commit caught me by surprise: http://git.zx2c4.com/systemd/commit/?id=daeb71a36a98834664e4d95773a3629b746f4db8 It wasn't in the NEWS or the mailing list post for 209, so when updating I encountered a bit of unexpected behavior. I see that I can disable persistent names using net.ifnames=0 in my kernel command line. Still not certain what the equivalent of the udev rule override is, though. Jason ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
