Hi!
Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> (2015-04-23):
> I talked to the release team and they prefer to postpone a fix to 8.1.
> I therefor would like to see a short paragraph added to the d-i 8.0
> errata [1].
>
> Afaics, the issue so far only happened for automated installations.
> There is no real solution/workaround ttbomk besides rebuilding d-i with
> a fixed udev-udeb. What people can do, is check
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and clean that up manually.
>
>
> Does the following paragraph sound ok
>
> Errata for release 8.0
>
> netboot install writes duplicate entries to 70-persistent-net.rules
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It might be better not to embed the “netboot install” information here, in case
some other installation methods exhibit the same issue. Maybe something like
“Installation process might write […]”?
> When doing automated installations, the installer may detect NICs twice,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ditto. Maybe “In some situations”?
> causing network interfaces to not be configured properly. This will
> produce a shift in the names of the NICs (so e.g. eth0/eth1 may be named
> as eth1/eth2). This is caused by a udev bug (#765577) and can be
> corrected in the installed system by manually editing
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and /etc/network/interfaces
> accordingly.
>
> Status: Will be fixed in 8.1
This looks good to me; I suspect it would make sense to have it under both
english/devel/debian-installer/errata.wml and english/releases/jessie/errata.wml
Does debian-www@ has any clues on how to make it easy for translators to figure
out both contents are very similar, so that we avoid possible duplication of
translation efforts?
Mraw,
KiBi.
> CCed the mail in full, so KiBi has some context.
>
> [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/
>
> Am 22.04.2015 um 14:25 schrieb Faidon Liambotis:
> > reopen 765577 !
> > found 765577 215-14
> > thanks
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> I see that we have independently devised the same fix, I am attaching
> >> a test case and a more refined version of your patch.
> >
> > I tried Jessie RC3 today and immediately found that the fix is,
> > unfortunately, buggy. Your patch constructs a regexp and takes care to
> > escape metacharacters "?" and "*" with a sed but does not escape "{" and
> > "}" that are also metacharacters in the extended set of POSIX regexps.
> > These are always found in the string-to-be-matched here with
> > 'ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0"' and 'ATTR{type}=="1"', so the if always fails.
> >
> > This was likely not caught by your test case (and was harder to debug
> > and figure out!) because GNU grep's -E mode handles { as both a literal
> > and a metacharacter heuristically for historic reasons (consult grep's
> > manpage for that) but busybox grep does not:
> > $ echo 'foo{bar}' > test
> > $ egrep 'foo{bar}' test
> > foo{bar}
> > $ busybox egrep 'foo{bar}' test
> > egrep: bad regex 'foo{bar}'
> > $ egrep 'fo{1,2}' test
> > foo{bar}
> > $ busybox egrep 'fo{1,2}' test
> > foo{bar}
> > Note that this is NOT a bug in busybox; foo{bar} is indeed an invalid
> > extended POSIX regexp and busybox is right to complain and error out.
> >
> > The very minimal last-minute fix below did the trick for me but I have
> > to say... constructing regexps in shell is tricky and the whole
> > escaping-with-sed logic feels like a hack. I think a literal grep (i.e.
> > -F) would be better here, especially since I don't see the point of an
> > exact match (even if the file was modified by the sysadmin, the right
> > thing would to not write a new rule anyway). This is probably something
> > to be considered post-jessie.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Faidon
> >
> > diff --git a/debian/extra/write_net_rules b/debian/extra/write_net_rules
> > index 38a3ca0..fedc0f1 100644
> > --- a/debian/extra/write_net_rules
> > +++ b/debian/extra/write_net_rules
> > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ basename=${INTERFACE%%[0-9]*}
> > match="$match, KERNEL==\"$basename*\""
> >
> > # build a regular expression that matches the new rule that we want to write
> > -new_rule_pattern=$(echo "^SUBSYSTEM==\"net\", ACTION==\"add\"$match" | sed -re 's/([\?\*])/\\\1/g')
> > +new_rule_pattern=$(echo "^SUBSYSTEM==\"net\", ACTION==\"add\"$match" | sed -re 's/([\?\*\{\}])/\\\1/g')
> >
> > # Double check if the new rule has already been written. This happens if
> > # multiple add events are generated before the script returns and udevd
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list
> > Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
> >
>
>
> --
> Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
> universe are pointed away from Earth?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature