On Mar 31, 2013 7:13 PM, "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt> wrote: > > On 2013-03-31, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) <nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt> wrote: > > On 2013-03-31, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 30/03/13 17:15, Tanstaafl wrote: > >>> Ok, just read the new news item and the linked udev-guide wiki page > >> > >> You should probably also read: > >> > >> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/03/predictably-non-persistent-names > >> > >> and: > >> > >> > >> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/03/predictable-persistently-non-mnemonic-names > > > > The feeling that I got while reading the first was exactly what the > > second talks about. > > > > We - from what I understand - had scripts automatically generating the > > name rules from MAC addresses, it's just that they generated stuff like > > ethX. > > > > Can't we just keep these scripts around (even if this was something > > provided by upstream and we would have to forge a new incarnation)? > > > > I mean, IMHO, net0, wl0, ... are much easier to deal with and understand > > than something physically-based. They also avoid problems caused by > > moving these cards around, or changes in the kernel drivers or BIOS, or > > BIOS settings that eventually end up exposing cards in a different way. > > > > The problem with the old approach was *just* the name clash that > > rendered the hacky approach unreliable. Maybe we could just fix the > > issue by using non-clashing namespaces, instead of pushing a completely > > different (and possibly less reliable) naming scheme by default. > > Ok, after some chat on IRC, it seems that upstream made it rather > non-trivial to have something like the old rule-generator, and that's > why we can't simply move that from, e.g., ethX to, say, netX. > > -- > Nuno Silva (aka njsg) > http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ > >
Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway" mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the same behavior... Rgds, --
