Full quote for some context, relevant part of the thread starts at https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/07/msg00084.html
On Ma, 02 iul 19, 20:14:02, Brian wrote: > On Tue 02 Jul 2019 at 10:22:56 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > > > On 2019-07-02 at 10:10, Curt wrote: > > > > > On 2019-07-02, The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > > > >>> Not even that, it seems (no longer affects systemd). > > >> > > >> Have you confirmed that? It seems possible that on a systemd > > >> machine, things in other packages (such as whatever would provide > > >> that 99-default.link file, which unfortunately - because it's under > > >> /etc/ - can't be easily found through 'apt-file search') might > > >> still be overriding 70-persistent-net.rules, even with this change > > >> reverted. > > > > > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/11436 > > > > > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/ed30802324365dde6c05d0b7c3ce1a0eff3bf571 > > > > > > Let's revert, and start with a clean slate. This fixes #11436. > > > > > > (#11436 being 'network interface is renamed although NAME has been > > > set by udev rule'.) > > > > Yeah, I read that, although I didn't read #11436. > > > > > Maybe I'm not understanding this (quite possible). > > > > I think you're reading it the same way I am. I'm just questioning > > whether what we're seeing here represents the whole picture, and partly > > also whether this is the latest word on the subject. > > > > It might be interesting to know when that section of the release notes > > was last modified, relative to when this change was made. > > Not long after 6th April 2019: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2019/04/msg00012.html > > > > > Somebody on an up-to-date Buster could perform Michael Biebl's bug > > > reproduction test: > > > > In particular, someone on a machine running full-on systemd. My > > available machines are either non-systemd or not systemd-as-init, so my > > observed results aren't applicable. > > My upgrade from stretch to buster left networking as it was before. My > 70-persistent-net.rules is > > SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", > ATTR{address}=="00:90:dc:a2:4d:26", > ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0" > > Following Curt's suggestion I removed the relevant module and rebooted. > 'ip a' shows eth0. The advice in the Release Notes > > > ....you should be aware that udev in buster no longer supports the > mechanism > > of defining their names via /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules. > > does not accord with my experience. In the light of #919390 it seems > doubtful to me that the "Migrating from legacy network interface names" > section is useful. Dear udev Maintainers, Please kindly confirm this Release Notes entry is needed/correct/etc. https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#migrate-interface-names #919390 appears to contradict /usr/share/doc/udev/README.Debian.gz. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
