On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 03:09:43PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
Just dealing with one server and my Linux
On 04/08/2013 11:04 AM, Bruce Hill wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 03:09:43PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
Just
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 03:09:43PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
The significance is that the kernel determines the eth* name order.
Right now, you are lucky in that the order is what you think it should
be, but if something changes in the kernel causing your cards to be
initialized in a
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:06:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Wha? I swear I was told that you could not reliably name the
iterfaces eth[0-n] using udev rules (which is what I've always done
without problems) because of race conditions. So I changed over to
net[0-n] on one machine, and was
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom
naming scheme when using mdev.
***UDEV*** has broken using eth[0-9]. mdev works just fine, thank
you.
udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused
On Apr 7, 2013 5:59 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom
naming scheme when using mdev.
***UDEV*** has broken using eth[0-9]. mdev works just fine, thank
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:26:52 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a
fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic
for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists?
Broken or not is totally depending on
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still
On 2013-04-07 4:09 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Do you have your network interface drivers built into the kernel or are
they modules?
I'm very interested
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
* on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT DRIVERS*
* drivers are built as modules, not built-in into the kernel
* is it possible to set things up so that the network driver modules do
not load automatically at
On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 09:43:28 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
* on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT DRIVERS*
* drivers are built as modules, not built-in into the kernel
* is it possible to set things up so that the
On Apr 6, 2013 3:44 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
* on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT DRIVERS*
* drivers are built as modules, not built-in into the kernel
* is it possible to set things up so
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:11:46 +0700
Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Apr 6, 2013 3:44 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
* on a machine with multiple network cards *ALL USING DIFFERENT
DRIVERS*
* drivers are
On 2013-04-06 8:31 AM, kwk...@hkbn.net kwk...@hkbn.net wrote:
Almost, except you should not specify a name that is also eth[0-9]+
(what you called 'traditional' name), since it can cause a race
condition where the kernel and udev fight for the name. While it used
to be the case (i.e. udev-197)
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the same
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules file
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:22:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
So, other than userland scripts that I created myself and know where
they live, where do I search for any files/scripts
created/generated/maintained by the system, for references to eth0/1 to
change to net0/1? Is it just /etc/conf.d?
On Apr 6, 2013 7:32 PM, kwk...@hkbn.net wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:11:46 +0700
Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
On Apr 6, 2013 3:44 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:14:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
* on a machine with multiple network cards
On 2013-04-06 10:40 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:22:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
So, other than userland scripts that I created myself and know where
they live, where do I search for any files/scripts
created/generated/maintained by the system, for
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 07:11:46PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Ahhh... I think now I understand...
So. Here's my summarization of the situation:
* The ethX naming can change, i.e., the interfaces can get out of order
* So, to fix this, udev decided to use the physical attachment points of
On 2013-04-06, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Ahhh... I think now I understand...
So. Here's my summarization of the situation:
* The ethX naming can change, i.e., the interfaces can get out of order
* So, to fix this, udev decided to use the physical attachment points of
the NIC in
On 04/06/2013 11:06 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-04-06, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Ahhh... I think now I understand...
So. Here's my summarization of the situation:
* The ethX naming can change, i.e., the interfaces can get out of order
* So, to fix this, udev decided to
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:46:13PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote
Ah, thanks for the clarification! :-)
So, from now on, for safety I'm going to use a custom naming scheme,
like lan[0-9]+ or wan[0-9]+ or wifi[0-9]+, anything that won't
collide with kernel names of eth[0-9]+
Now I only had to
On 2013-04-03 6:28 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
manually.
Right, it used to be
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:07:00AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-04 5:13 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
I gets so bad that people are starting to make shit up to be worried
about, instead of just reading the simple document that is right in
front of their eyes that
But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
requires more than just symlinking 80-net-name-slot.rules to
/dev/null...? Apparently you should also create your own
70-my-net-names.rules - but I've
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
requires more than just symlinking 80-net-name-slot.rules to
/dev/null...? Apparently you
On 2013-04-05 2:41 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
requires more than just
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:41:28PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
requires more than just
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:41:28PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
Neither of these is needed if you want to have your own names,
because naming the interfaces yourself in /etc/uev/70-net-names.rules or
whatever you call the file overrides udev's predictable names.
If people are using ethx
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the same
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules file they've had for over a year,
which was working with udev-171.
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:58:02PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I'd still like to know why the contents of my current rules file differs
so much from the examples I've seen... ie, the two extra items that are
in mine ('DRIVERS==' and 'KERNEL=='), and the missing one
('ACTION==')... and whether
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:11:39PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the same
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:41:28PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote
If people are using ethx names and getting away with it it is probably
because they are loading the drivers as modules, or by chance the kernel
is initializing the cards in the order they expect. There is no
guarantee that will
On 2013-04-01, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/01/2013 03:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
You know that both udev and eudev have exactly the same issue with
separate /usr right?
The problem there isn't in the udev code, but it has to do with what is
happening in rules that other
On 2013-04-02, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2013 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org
wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: The feature can also be
completely disabled using
On 04/04/2013 10:10, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
Sort of the same here, except that I use lan0 instead of eth0, because
once in a while I use broadcom's wireless drivers instead of the kernel
drivers, and the former assign an ethX name.
Sadly, I still get some problems after resuming
On 2013-04-04 5:13 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
I gets so bad that people are starting to make shit up to be worried
about, instead of just reading the simple document that is right in
front of their eyes that already fully and completely answers the
question at hand
On 2013-04-03, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
manually.
Right, it used to be
On 04/04/2013 10:59 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-04-03, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:38:28 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Have you read the news item?
Yes. I found it rather confusing.
It refers to a new format for rules, but the examples use the exact
same format as the old rules.
Poor choice of terminology there, the format is the same only
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:07:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Not to mention the fact that this final/current seemingly complete
document was way, way too late for the many people who ended up with
totally broken systems, and *that* is what caused all of the 'hysteria
and mob-think' you so
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:28:10PM +0100, Mick wrote:
On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
manually.
Right, it used to be
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:05:06PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:07:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Or, as an alternative, *how* to switch to eudev (their web page does
*not* have simple/precise instructions on how to switch, only a
description of what it is) - ie, do I
On 2013-04-02, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
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
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:13:12 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-04-02, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
In Flameyes blog, he showed an example of using udev rules pretty
much identical to the ones I already had,
On 02-Apr-13 21:58, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 02/04/2013 21:41, Tanstaafl wrote:
Are you saying that now, with udev-200, the default is the OLD way, and
you have to intentionally enable the NEW way??
No, you are stilling misunderstanding. The news item goes to great
lengths to explain that
On 2013-04-03, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
Have you read the news item?
Yes. I found it rather confusing.
It refers to a new format for rules, but the examples use the exact
same format as the old rules.
It talks about how 80-net-name-slot.rules needs to be either an empty
file
And if it's confusing for the 'bit jockeys' on this mailing list what do
you think will be the effect on the casual user?
This could have been handled better, imho. What happened to that
documentation mojo Gentoo is known for? The post-install notes
are a real head scratcher.
On Apr 3, 2013 9:40
Hi,
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-04-03, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
Have you read the news item?
Yes. I found it rather confusing.
It refers to a new format for rules, but the examples use the exact
same format as the old rules.
It talks about how
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:06:20PM +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi,
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-04-03, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
Have you read the news item?
Yes. I found it rather confusing.
It refers to a new format for rules, but the examples use the exact
On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote:
Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of
those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did
manually.
Right, it used to be auto-generated by udev scripts. With udev-200 you are
meant to
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: The feature can also be
completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line. I just
added that to my grub.conf entries and I sail blissfully on with
On 02/04/2013 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org
wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: The feature can also be
completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line. I just
added that to my
On 02-Apr-13 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: The feature can also be
completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line. I just
added that to my
On 2013-04-02 3:21 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02-Apr-13 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: The feature can
also be
completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on
On 02/04/2013 21:41, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-02 3:21 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02-Apr-13 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
The most important para to me in the news item was: The feature can
also be
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
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
Am Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC)
schrieb Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com:
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
Am Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:15:40 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
Am Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC)
schrieb Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com:
On 2013-04-02, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you are stilling misunderstanding.
He's not the only one.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
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
On Apr 1, 2013 2:10 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/03/2013 20:26, Dale wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:34:51 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
What about USB network adaptors? A user may not even realise they
plugged it into a different USB slot from last time, yet the device
name changes.
Fair point but wouldn't that be only if you plug in two of the same
type that
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 03:02:51 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
What about USB network adaptors? A user may not even realise they
plugged it into a different USB slot from last time, yet the device
name changes.
congratulation, you just found another reason why today's udev sucks.
I take
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:40:09 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I find the OpenBSD method of different names like fxp0 usefuk
You can emulate that with suitable (e)udev rules.
--
Neil Bothwick
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Apr 1, 2013 1:54 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:34:51 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
What about USB network adaptors? A user may not even realise they
plugged it into a different USB slot from last time, yet the device
name changes.
Fair point
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:57:42 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
I still don't understand what's so bad with MAC-based identification? I
mean, uniqueness defined through MAC Address identity, the system name
is just a label...
MAC addresses are not human-friendly. It would be OK if you could set up
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:19:18 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
What the article didn't mention was that if you change your interface
names, you have to create a new symlink in /etc/init.d and add it to
the default runlevel. I'm glad I spotted that one before rebooting:)
So, just
ln -s
On 04/01/2013 09:12 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:57:42 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
I still don't understand what's so bad with MAC-based identification? I
mean, uniqueness defined through MAC Address identity, the system name
is just a label...
MAC addresses are not
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:12:17 +0100
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
I still don't understand what's so bad with MAC-based
identification? I mean, uniqueness defined through MAC Address
identity, the system name is just a label...
MAC addresses are not human-friendly. It would be
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:29:08 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
MAC addresses are not human-friendly. It would be OK if you could set
up aliases, so your firewall rules could use enaabbccddeeff while you
could still type eth0.
Frankly, I never found 'eth0' to be particularly friendly, either.
On 04/01/2013 09:54 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:29:08 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
MAC addresses are not human-friendly. It would be OK if you could set
up aliases, so your firewall rules could use enaabbccddeeff while you
could still type eth0.
Frankly, I never found
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:37:07 + (UTC)
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:44:18PM -0500, Dale wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or
On 04/01/2013 03:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:44:18PM -0500, Dale wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's
Michael Mol wrote:
On 04/01/2013 03:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:44:18PM -0500, Dale wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan
On Monday 01 April 2013 20:51:45 Michael Mol wrote:
---8
So, there are three conceivable configurations (initramfs
notwithstanding):
What a fine word! It's a while since I saw it last.
1. With systems which don't require /usr binaries before /usr would be
mounted, separate /usr is not a
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
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:
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:
On Mar 31, 2013 7:13 PM, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt
wrote:
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
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
same behavior...
Rgds,
--
I synced yesterday and I didn't see the news alert. Last eudev update
was in Feb. so I *guess* not. It seems
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
same behavior...
I synced yesterday and I didn't see the news alert. Last eudev update
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
same behavior...
I synced yesterday and I didn't see the
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
same
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and
On 31/03/2013 20:26, Dale wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
same behavior...
I synced
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:44:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
I'm just hoping people will be able to find a solution to this that
works well for them. I especially wish that for those managing a remote
system with little or no physical access.
Well I just updated a headless box, followed the instructions
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:48:19 + (UTC)
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
instead of pushing a completely
different (and possibly less reliable) naming scheme by default.
Whilst I wouldn't want them changing on me (though if your physically
changing the pci slot then you
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 31/03/2013 20:26, Dale wrote:
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-31, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
same
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:40:09 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
instead of pushing a completely
different (and possibly less reliable) naming scheme by default.
Whilst I wouldn't want them changing on me (though if your physically
changing the pci slot then you should be able to handle the
On 03/31/2013 03:55 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:40:09 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
instead of pushing a completely
different (and possibly less reliable) naming scheme by default.
Whilst I wouldn't want them changing on me (though if your physically
changing the pci
On 2013-03-31 3:37 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
What the article didn't mention was that if you change your interface
names, you have to create a new symlink in /etc/init.d and add it to
the default runlevel. I'm glad I spotted that one before rebooting:)
So, just
ln -s
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:55:00 +0100
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
What about USB network adaptors? A user may not even realise they
plugged it into a different USB slot from last time, yet the device
name changes.
Fair point but wouldn't that be only if you plug in two of the same
On 2013-03-31, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:44:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
I'm just hoping people will be able to find a solution to this that
works well for them. I especially wish that for those managing a remote
system with little or no physical access.=20
On Sunday 31 Mar 2013 21:19:18 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-03-31 3:37 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
What the article didn't mention was that if you change your interface
names, you have to create a new symlink in /etc/init.d and add it to
the default runlevel. I'm glad I spotted
On 01/04/13 01:01, Dale wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this my way or the highway
mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the
same behavior...
Rgds,
--
I synced yesterday and I didn't see the news alert. Last eudev update
was
Am 31.03.2013 21:55, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:40:09 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
instead of pushing a completely
different (and possibly less reliable) naming scheme by default.
Whilst I wouldn't want them changing on me (though if your physically
changing the pci slot
On 2013-03-30, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Ok, just read the new news item and the linked udev-guide wiki page, and
the only thing left that I'm unsure/concerned about now is the
persistent net rules changes...
The very last line on the wiki page says:
4. Known problems
99 matches
Mail list logo
