[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#363598: udev should conflict with ifrename

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 09:01:40AM +0000, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > If you have not noticed yet, the latest udev release by default
> > automatically generates rules to have persistent names for network
> > interfaces.

> > I am inclined to agree with the bug reporter, but I want to double check
> > and ask if anybody has other arguments.

> > On Apr 20, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu> wrote:

> >> Besides the fact that ifrename is more of a hack, now that udev enables
> >> persistent naming of interfaces (z25_persistent-net.rules) udev should
> >> conflict with ifrename. Otherwise the user could get unexpected results
> >> if /etc/iftab still exists and the ifrename init script tries to rename t=
> > he
> >> interfaces (again) with possibly different names than the ones set in
> >> z25_persistent-net.rules.

> Are there any file conflicts between udev and ifrename? If not, then
> according to the old dpkg maintainer, Scott Remnant, a Conflicts is not
> warranted. He mentioned this in the context of xscreensaver breaking
> gnomescreensaver in ubuntu: https://launchpad.net/bugs/22335 (Look for
> the comment starting with "Ok, I'm starting to get a bit tired of this
> ...")

> It seems to me that here the (yet unimplemented) Breaks: field would be
> right.

What's the sense of pointing this out when that field isn't implemented (or
standardized)?  Scott may object to how Conflicts: is used, but until Breaks
exists and is available for use in Debian, it's the correct field to use.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: