On 10/26/06, Kris van Rens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> This is a non-issue. Both are processed, and in this particular case it
> doesn't matter which of the files is examined first.
Ah ok, no problem then.
It would be 'cleaner' to give it another number IMHO.
OT:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> This is a non-issue. Both are processed, and in this particular case it
> doesn't matter which of the files is examined first.
Ah ok, no problem then.
It would be 'cleaner' to give it another number IMHO.
OT: Why 26 anyway? What's the thought behind this? (I'm curi
Alex Merry wrote:
On Thursday 26 October 2006 09:34, Kris van Rens wrote:
cat > /etc/udev/rules.d/26-network.rules << EOF
I found that there is a udev rule '26-modprobe.rules' already; I'm
not sure how this works out as the filenames are different but the
priority number for udev is the same
Kris van Rens wrote:
Hi,
I'm working my way through the LFS-6.2-stable book and found this:
In section 7.13.1 (Creating stable names for network interfaces); the
reader is told to create a udev rule for the network card by doing:
cat > /etc/udev/rules.d/26-network.rules << EOF
I found that th
On Thursday 26 October 2006 09:34, Kris van Rens wrote:
> cat > /etc/udev/rules.d/26-network.rules << EOF
>
> I found that there is a udev rule '26-modprobe.rules' already; I'm
> not sure how this works out as the filenames are different but the
> priority number for udev is the same. It might just
Hi,
I'm working my way through the LFS-6.2-stable book and found this:
In section 7.13.1 (Creating stable names for network interfaces); the
reader is told to create a udev rule for the network card by doing:
cat > /etc/udev/rules.d/26-network.rules << EOF
I found that there is a udev rule '26-
