? On Feb 5, 2012 1:52 PM, "Martin Pitt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Colin Watson [2012-01-31 14:29 +0000]: > > There are certainly some advantages to enabling biosdevname by default. > > On systems that support it, it makes it somewhat easier to write scripts > > that predictably apply to a certain interface without having to mess > > around with looking up interfaces by MAC address. > > I agree that in many situations where you work with multiple > interfaces, stable names would be much preferrable. > > > [...] > > Secondly, while as I said above I agree that enabling biosdevname solves > > some problems, it seems likely that this change will cause problems of > > its own. For example, any software that needs to know about network > > interfaces (let's say it listens on a particular interface) might well > > default to eth0 > > Stephane confirmed that this is an actual problem in his reply. > > This situation has a striking similarity with stable names for block, > sound, and input devices. There was a time when the "classic" names > like hda/sda went away entirely, but this situation never lasted very > long because of pretty much exactly this problem: too much software > making hardcoded assumptions about device names. > > That's why the current policy eventually distilled itself: it is > actively wrong, and now even unsupported by udev to rename devices, so > schemas like "sd[a-z][0-9]" or input/event* will always continue to > work. Instead, the only thing you can and should do is to create > aliases in the form of symlinks (/dev/disks/by-uuid/, > /dev/input/by-id/, etc.) > > Now, unfortunately network devices have always been special in that > they are not proper character devices, so symlinks don't work. But as > the kernel supports renaming devices, is there any way of providing > the same devices under two names, i. e. adding aliases instead of > ifrename? interfaces(5) already supports mappings and renames, so from > my naive POV it seems this shouldn't be too hard to get a concept of > aliases? Perhaps even the Dell folks would be interested in this, as > it would remove the main blocker for adoption? > > If we can get this to work, then I see no reason to not introduce > biosdevname, as it would not break any existing setup, local > configuration, or hardcoded assumption. > > Thanks, > > Martin > -- > Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de > Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) > > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel >
-- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
