On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 09:32:41PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Jan 6, 2013 7:38 PM, "Dave Reisner" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Just an FYI: > > > > Upstream pushed a commit[0] which gives network devices persistent, and > > unique, names based on hardware attributes, avoiding the random kernel > > names. While this solves a real problem, it's also a fairly jarring > > change. For example: > > > > $ udevadm info /sys/class/net/eth0 > > P: /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.2/0000:05:00.0/net/eth0 > > E: DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.2/0000:05:00.0/net/eth0 > > E: ID_BUS=pci > > E: ID_MODEL_ID=0x4364 > > E: ID_NET_NAME_MAC=enxbcaec50bfcc8 > > E: ID_NET_NAME_PATH=enp5s0 > > E: ID_OUI_FROM_DATABASE=ASUSTek COMPUTER INC. > > E: ID_PCI_CLASS_FROM_DATABASE=Network controller > > E: ID_PCI_SUBCLASS_FROM_DATABASE=Ethernet controller > > E: ID_PRODUCT_FROM_DATABASE=88E8056 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller > > E: ID_VENDOR_FROM_DATABASE=Marvell Technology Group Ltd. > > E: ID_VENDOR_ID=0x11ab > > E: IFINDEX=2 > > E: INTERFACE=eth0 > > E: SUBSYSTEM=net > > E: SYSTEMD_ALIAS=/sys/subsystem/net/devices/eth0 > > E: TAGS=:systemd: > > E: USEC_INITIALIZED=42063 > > > > If I were to reboot right now (systemd-git), eth0 would become enp5s0. I > > tend to think that this is fairly extreme, and would throw off a lot of > > people -- especially those who never needed to deal with interface > > renaming. > > > > For systemd 197, I plan on shipping this rule as documentation in > > /usr/share/doc/systemd and _not_ enabling it by default. Those who want > > to opt in can simply copy the rule to /etc/udev/rules.d. They can also, > > of course, continue to use whatever MAC-based rules they might have, but > > I would strongly recommend switching these rules to be triggered by > > ID_NET_NAME_{SLOT,PATH,ONBOARD} instead. > > > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > > [0] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=394e2938ff9 > > How about: > > 1) follow upstream on fresh installs (i.e. ship the rule and don't mask it > in post_instal).
Scary. I agree with upstream that this is wanted and that it solves real problems, but I really see no reason that this should be opt-out, rather than opt-in. We have the option of explaining why the dummy file exists in /etc when we make things opt-in, but opt-out on install makes the messaging easier to miss. Additionally, there'll be an awkward phase where older install media uses older systemd (providing the "classic" names), followed by a reboot into newer systemd with the new naming scheme. Anyone else have an opinion on this? > 2) stay backwards compatible on upgrade (i.e. mask the rule in > post_upgrade). > > 3) print a notice about the masking so people can unmask it. Definitely planned. > 4) rather than a symlink to null, use an empty rules file with a comment > explaining why it is there and what will happen if you delete it. I like this. Done for the -git package, at least. d
