Hi! Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> (2015-04-23): > I talked to the release team and they prefer to postpone a fix to 8.1. > I therefor would like to see a short paragraph added to the d-i 8.0 > errata [1]. > > Afaics, the issue so far only happened for automated installations. > There is no real solution/workaround ttbomk besides rebuilding d-i with > a fixed udev-udeb. What people can do, is check > /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and clean that up manually. > > > Does the following paragraph sound ok > > Errata for release 8.0 > > netboot install writes duplicate entries to 70-persistent-net.rules > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It might be better not to embed the “netboot install” information here, in case some other installation methods exhibit the same issue. Maybe something like “Installation process might write […]”? > When doing automated installations, the installer may detect NICs twice, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ditto. Maybe “In some situations”? > causing network interfaces to not be configured properly. This will > produce a shift in the names of the NICs (so e.g. eth0/eth1 may be named > as eth1/eth2). This is caused by a udev bug (#765577) and can be > corrected in the installed system by manually editing > /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and /etc/network/interfaces > accordingly. > > Status: Will be fixed in 8.1 This looks good to me; I suspect it would make sense to have it under both english/devel/debian-installer/errata.wml and english/releases/jessie/errata.wml Does debian-www@ has any clues on how to make it easy for translators to figure out both contents are very similar, so that we avoid possible duplication of translation efforts? Mraw, KiBi. > CCed the mail in full, so KiBi has some context. > > [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/ > > Am 22.04.2015 um 14:25 schrieb Faidon Liambotis: > > reopen 765577 ! > > found 765577 215-14 > > thanks > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > >> I see that we have independently devised the same fix, I am attaching > >> a test case and a more refined version of your patch. > > > > I tried Jessie RC3 today and immediately found that the fix is, > > unfortunately, buggy. Your patch constructs a regexp and takes care to > > escape metacharacters "?" and "*" with a sed but does not escape "{" and > > "}" that are also metacharacters in the extended set of POSIX regexps. > > These are always found in the string-to-be-matched here with > > 'ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0"' and 'ATTR{type}=="1"', so the if always fails. > > > > This was likely not caught by your test case (and was harder to debug > > and figure out!) because GNU grep's -E mode handles { as both a literal > > and a metacharacter heuristically for historic reasons (consult grep's > > manpage for that) but busybox grep does not: > > $ echo 'foo{bar}' > test > > $ egrep 'foo{bar}' test > > foo{bar} > > $ busybox egrep 'foo{bar}' test > > egrep: bad regex 'foo{bar}' > > $ egrep 'fo{1,2}' test > > foo{bar} > > $ busybox egrep 'fo{1,2}' test > > foo{bar} > > Note that this is NOT a bug in busybox; foo{bar} is indeed an invalid > > extended POSIX regexp and busybox is right to complain and error out. > > > > The very minimal last-minute fix below did the trick for me but I have > > to say... constructing regexps in shell is tricky and the whole > > escaping-with-sed logic feels like a hack. I think a literal grep (i.e. > > -F) would be better here, especially since I don't see the point of an > > exact match (even if the file was modified by the sysadmin, the right > > thing would to not write a new rule anyway). This is probably something > > to be considered post-jessie. > > > > Thanks, > > Faidon > > > > diff --git a/debian/extra/write_net_rules b/debian/extra/write_net_rules > > index 38a3ca0..fedc0f1 100644 > > --- a/debian/extra/write_net_rules > > +++ b/debian/extra/write_net_rules > > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ basename=${INTERFACE%%[0-9]*} > > match="$match, KERNEL==\"$basename*\"" > > > > # build a regular expression that matches the new rule that we want to > > write > > -new_rule_pattern=$(echo "^SUBSYSTEM==\"net\", ACTION==\"add\"$match" | sed > > -re 's/([\?\*])/\\\1/g') > > +new_rule_pattern=$(echo "^SUBSYSTEM==\"net\", ACTION==\"add\"$match" | sed > > -re 's/([\?\*\{\}])/\\\1/g') > > > > # Double check if the new rule has already been written. This happens if > > # multiple add events are generated before the script returns and udevd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list > > pkg-systemd-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers > > > > > -- > Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the > universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
