On Friday 28 August 2015 12:02:01 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 28 August 2015 16:57:47 Gene Heskett wrote: > > Yes, its a certified PITA and needs fixed by debian or the > > maintainer. > > It has become a Monty Python parrot - in other words a dead one. See > the beginning of this thread. > > Lisi
I have assumed that dhcpd can probably deal with it if running network-mangler. But I am staticly addressed, and N-M is the first thing I excise after a new install. Maybe even wicd can but I haven't used it recently either as its not part of a default install. My local network is 100% static. So when udev screws me, I an not able to access anything or anybody to ask what hapoened. And static cannot deal with its interfaces being renamed after the interface has been brought up. I guess the udev way is the way it will be, but in that event, the bug, a huge one, needs a fixit script included with udev, and an entry in the udev man page under "see also' so anyone with the sense to run man network would see as a see also. Neither exist that I am aware of, and I take the ignoring of folks who use static addressing into consideration in terms of having a working network rug jerked out from under them not at all well. I will therefore bitch. Fortunately it was recorded in the messages file, which told me what I had to do to make it work once again. Would our mythical Joe and Judy Lunchbucket user have what it takes to fix it? Heck no. But why should I be punished because I use static addresss defined in the hosts file? Maybe a bit more trouble to setup initially, but that was 17+ years ago when it was the only way to do it. And its far simpler to maintain than all the moving targets udev and dhcp can be and are giving us, IMO just to harrass the long time users, which it does a fine job of. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
