On 1 April 2013 02:56, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this problem.
Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the news item or wiki entry.
--
,,
SUPPORT
130401 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 1 April 2013 02:56, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this problem.
Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the news item or wiki entry.
So you broke the threading on the original email,
you deleted
On 1 April 2013 16:32, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
130401 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 1 April 2013 02:56, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this problem.
Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the news item or wiki entry.
On 04/01/2013 01:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 1 April 2013 16:32, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
130401 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 1 April 2013 02:56, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this problem.
Perhaps it needs to
On Apr 1, 2013 8:53 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/01/2013 01:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 1 April 2013 16:32, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
130401 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 1 April 2013 02:56, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I have sent a msg to
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote
Those 70-* and 80-* are in udev pkg_postinst, this news item,
everywhere... can all 3 be deleted if you haven't modified them yourself.
So that leaves one... local.rules... dunno about that. I'm curious.
One paragraph you
Am Sonntag, 31. März 2013, 03:17:52 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
Nothing is stopping you from leaving out the symlink either and
migrating to the new name despite using only 1 network card either,
it's still more reliable than the kernel names
Why should I?
Kernel behaviour is traditionally way
130331 Samuli Suominen offered prompt + polite help re Udev 200 :
Thanks. In fact, it's a bit more complex than I thought yesterday.
After moving the '70 80' files into a subdirectory restarting, I get :
root:501 ~ dhcpcd
dhcpcd[830]: version 5.6.4 starting
... [nothing happens for
I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this problem.
Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the news item or wiki entry.
--
,,
SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities
130329 Samuli Suominen wrote:
Attached new version again, more generic than before.
I find this difficult to decipher. Who is it aimed at ?
I've just updated to Udev 200 . Following the news item,
I renamed /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules :
my script to start my I/net connection
On 31/03/13 04:06, Philip Webb wrote:
130329 Samuli Suominen wrote:
Attached new version again, more generic than before.
I find this difficult to decipher. Who is it aimed at ?
I've just updated to Udev 200 . Following the news item,
I renamed /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules :
On 31/03/2013 03:17, Samuli Suominen wrote:
it's still more reliable than the kernel names
I still call that bullshit.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On 29/03/13 12:24, Duncan wrote:
Samuli Suominen posted on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:09:27 +0200 as excerpted:
This feature will also replace the functionality of sys-apps/biosdevname
which you should uninstall. However, you can still keep using
sys-apps/biosdevname if you want.
I'd suggest...
On 29/03/2013 11:26, Samuli Suominen wrote:
With the new predictable network interface naming scheme which upstream
enabled
by default you don't have to rename anymore because the names will be static
and not randomly rename when you, for example, upgrade the kernel. This can be
very
On 29/03/13 12:46, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 29/03/2013 11:26, Samuli Suominen wrote:
With the new predictable network interface naming scheme which upstream enabled
by default you don't have to rename anymore because the names will be static
and not randomly rename when you, for example,
On 29/03/2013 11:50, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Not false, but configurable, and linked from the news item -- nobody
stopping you from eg. using MAC addresses instead of PCI slots for
defining the names, just like one would have renamed them using MAC with
70-persistent-net.rules
Which I usually
On 29/03/13 13:01, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 29/03/2013 11:50, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Not false, but configurable, and linked from the news item -- nobody
stopping you from eg. using MAC addresses instead of PCI slots for
defining the names, just like one would have renamed them using MAC
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
On 29/03/2013 12:29, Samuli Suominen wrote:
One you can control, the another you can't. So still not FUD.
You do not really control it any more than the kernel. The fact that me
and you can edit an udev ruleset to control it, does not mean that
most users see it as a black box.
The news item
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
On 29/03/13 13:38, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 29/03/2013 12:29, Samuli Suominen wrote:
One you can control, the another you can't. So still not FUD.
You do not really control it any more than the kernel. The fact that me
and you can edit an udev ruleset to control it, does not mean that
On 29/03/2013 13:20, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I don't agree with that, /etc/udev/rules.d and overriding udev rules is
very basic administration, very basic...
I'll put a bit more trust on our users.
Let's agree to disagree then. To me, it's much more consistent the
kernel's behaviour than these
On 03/29/2013 08:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 29/03/13 13:38, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 29/03/2013 12:29, Samuli Suominen wrote:
One you can control, the another you can't. So still not FUD.
You do not really control it any more than the kernel. The fact that me
and you can edit an
Am Freitag, 29. März 2013, 13:20:20 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
On 29/03/13 13:38, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 29/03/2013 12:29, Samuli Suominen wrote:
One you can control, the another you can't. So still not FUD.
You do not really control it any more than the kernel. The fact that me
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not really. Every time I modified anything in there, it just took a few udev
versions and suddenly I was flooded with deprecation warnings a la things
work different now, find out on your own how to fix it...
Not
On 29/03/13 15:30, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not really. Every time I modified anything in there, it just took a few udev
versions and suddenly I was flooded with deprecation warnings a la things
work different now, find
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
What do you have there? We cover bunch of those in pkg_postinst of udev
already.
After a bunch of cleanup (after which I have yet to detect any
problems), I have:
70-persistent-cd.rules 70-persistent-net.rules
On 29/03/13 16:35, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
What do you have there? We cover bunch of those in pkg_postinst of udev
already.
After a bunch of cleanup (after which I have yet to detect any
problems), I have:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Those 70-* and 80-* are in udev pkg_postinst, this news item, everywhere...
can all 3 be deleted if you haven't modified them yourself.
So that leaves one... local.rules... dunno about that. I'm curious.
Excellent,
On 29 March 2013 16:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) nunojsi...@ist.utl.ptwrote:
On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu 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
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
In my mind, the message says either remove 70-* and setup 80-* or your
system will end up broken.
The other bit is that modifying symlinks in /etc/init.d is only
mentioned in passing. That is a VERY important step
On 29/03/13 18:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu 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,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I don't have enough time to go through the rest of this thread, but if
the first sentence hasn't been adjusted yet:
On 29/03/13 08:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
If you still have network interface renaming rules in
/etc/udev/rules.d, like
On 29/03/2013 20:20, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Might I recommend at least a little bit of context before going right
into you have to remove these rules? IE - if a user wants to keep
the old mac-based rules they already have, can't they? 80-*.rules
doesn't override that now, does it?
It
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:38:03PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
In my mind, the message says either remove 70-* and setup 80-* or your
system will end up broken.
The other bit is that modifying symlinks in
35 matches
Mail list logo
