On 01/26/2013 10:30 AM, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> I have read the news item and still have questions. The news item
> covers several points.
>
> 1. remove udev-postmount:
> I did this but worry that I now cannot reboot until I upgrade
> udev. Is that correct?
A reasonable question and I don't know the answer, but you can get
that file back by re-emerging your existing version of udev first.
You can always remove it later after everything is working okay,
which is what I did.
> 3. Predictable network interface names.
> I have the problematic udev rule.
> Specifically 70-persistent-net.rules has (on one line)
>
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> ATTR{address}=="00:1e:c9:48:f9:a0", ATTR{type}=="1",
> KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
>
> I read the bug report, but it is not as clear as I would like.
> Is it true that I can change my file to simply
>
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> ATTR{address}=="00:1e:c9:48:f9:a0", ATTR{type}=="1",
> KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="net0"
>
> That is just change the NAME from eth0 to net0 ?
I kept my persistent-net rules and I still have a working eth0. Am
I politically incorrect to run this way? Dunno (and don't care ;)
> The news item does not mention the problem of moving files
> from /usr/lib/udev/rules.d to /lib/udev/rules.d. Am I correct in
> believing that we still need one of the equivalents of
> equery belongs -n /usr/lib/udev | xargs emerge -pv
Yes -- if you still have any files in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d you should
re-emerge those packages so they are re-installed in /lib/udev/rules.d
before rebooting. At least, I know that's what I should have done :)
