On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Dave Reisner <d...@falconindy.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 05:12:56PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> To clarify things: >> >> 1. Arch's script deals with 80-net-setup-link.rules > > We (Arch) made a decision back when the persistent naming was added to > make it opt-in by masking 80-net-name-slot.rules in /etc. Now, if the > 209 upgrade comes around and 80-net-name-slot.rules still exists in > /etc, we just rename it. We make no assumptions about the contents of > that file. If the user added their own naming rules to that file, we > have absolutely no surefire way of determining what the net effect of > those rules are, and what they might translate to, functionally, in > 99-default.link. > >> 2. freedesktop.org wiki followed suit and added that suggestion >> 3. Others have said elsewhere that the proper way to do this is >> actually to override 99-default.link instead. >> 4. Gentoo went with number 3. >> >> Now: >> >> 5. Can numbers 1 and 2 update to the suggestion of 3? > > So, no, 1 won't be changed. Comparing a post_upgrade action to a wiki > page is an odd choice, anyways.
Yeah, I agree with Dave here. What the Arch post-upgrade script does is "preserve the current behavior, whatever it is" without manual intervention, whereas the wiki should teach the admin how they would best manually get the behavior they want. -t _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
