On 2013-04-03, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> Have you read the news item?
Yes. I found it rather confusing.
It refers to a "new format" for rules, but the examples use the exact
same format as the old rules.
It talks about how 80-net-name-slot.rules needs to be either an empty
file or a synmlink to /dev/null if you want to disable the new naming
scheme -- but that doesn't seem to be right. After the upgrade my
80-net-name-slot.rules file was neither an empty file nor a symlink to
/dev/null, but I'm still getting the same old names.
> It explains why the file should be renamed and also why you should
> change the names in the rules to not use ethN.
The only explanation I found was "the old way is now deprecated".
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Kids, don't gross me
at off ... "Adventures with
gmail.com MENTAL HYGIENE" can be
carried too FAR!
