On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:38:28 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards 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.
Poor choice of terminology there, the format is the same only the chosen namespace is different. > 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. Do you have a 70-persistent-net.rules file? That would override to give the old names, which is why the news item tells you to change it "If the system still has old network interface renaming rules in /etc/udev/rules.d, like 70-persistent-net.rules, those will need to be either modified or removed." > > 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". My bad, I thought that was covered in the news item, but it is left to one of the linked pages to explain it. -- Neil Bothwick The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
