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