On 29 March 2013 16:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 29/03/2013 12:34, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb: > >>> > If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, no matter how many > kernel > >>> > changes happen, it'll always be eth0. > >> That was not true with the old persistent naming. One example which we > >> encountered in #gentoo IRC was the split between e1000 and e1000e > drivers > >> which caused interfaces to change names. > > > > Okay let me re-qualify the statement: > > > > "If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, and I don't mess up with > > it in userspace at all, no matter how many kernel changes happen, it'll > > always be eth0". > > > > Yes, the previous persistent rules for udev would have messed that one > > up when e1000e got split, or if you switched between the > > Broadcom-provided driver to the kernel one or vice-versa. The deathforce > > drivers come in mind as well. > > IMHO this is really relevant. It is annoying seeing how many people go > "oh you *must not* use the old scheme, because it won't work". > > The new naming scheme does *not* prevent you from using eth0, users > should really just be told they can *disable* udev rules (and told how > to do it) if they are happy with the kernel name of their sole network > card, instead of being told that they *must* upgrade to the new rules. > > The messages so far seem to imply that you can't have eth0. You *can*, > but udev won't be able to do anything if the device appears as > something else and there's already another eth0. If you don't already > have eth0, the udev rules *will* work, even if your card is named in > the eth namespace. > > The *only* thing that breaks is renaming network devices to names that > are already in use inside the kernel namespaces. > > > -- > Nuno Silva (aka njsg) > http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ > > > I sort of agree here. The news item is rather scary for people maintaining remote boxes. Couldn't we just preserve the old behavior with an opt-in for people who want to use this new feature? Or am I reading the message wrong? In my mind, the message says "either remove 70-* and setup 80-*" or your system will end up broken. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
