Neil Bothwick wrote: > 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."
I don't have any rules except the 80-* one installed by new udev and I still have the old names - and this has been the case now for 3 machines and I upgrade a 4th right now. >> > 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. - Jörg
