Hi, Grant Edwards wrote:
> 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. same for me. I followed the upgrade guide and removed any 70-* files, renamed the net.eth0 link to the new scheme net.enp0s1 just to to find out that the kernel could not bring up a network with the such a device. The machine booted fine after using eth0 instead again. One a second machine I kept eth0 immediately and it booted without problems afterwards. >> 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". And the new name simply did not work. - Jörg
