On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:37:22PM +0200, J??rg Schaible wrote: > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:38:28 +0000 (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 the chosen > > namespace is different. > > > >> It talks about how 80-net-name-slot.rules needs to be either an empty > >> file or a synmlink to /dev/null if you want to disable the new naming > >> scheme -- but that doesn't seem to be right. After the upgrade my > >> 80-net-name-slot.rules file was neither an empty file nor a symlink to > >> /dev/null, but I'm still getting the same old names. > > > > Do you have a 70-persistent-net.rules file? That would override to give > > the old names, which is why the news item tells you to change it > > > > "If the system still has old network interface renaming rules in > > /etc/udev/rules.d, like 70-persistent-net.rules, those will need > > to be either modified or removed." > > I don't have any rules except the 80-* one installed by new udev and I still > have the old names - and this has been the case now for 3 machines and I > upgrade a 4th right now.
Same behavior here. Rm'd the 70- rules files from udev dir, and it's still using old device names. > > >> > It explains why the file should be renamed and also why you should > >> > change the names in the rules to not use ethN. > >> > >> The only explanation I found was "the old way is now deprecated". > > > > My bad, I thought that was covered in the news item, but it is left to > > one of the linked pages to explain it. > > - J??rg > >
pgpYOwlwYgXa5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
