Re: overriding udev rules
Russ Allbery wrote:
>Kay Sievers <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Hmm, why would upgrades break?
> > The old file would still be there, rename the devices (if you keep the
> > patch to swap names, which upstream does not support any more), and take
> > precedence over tht new names; the old rules file would just not be
> > updated anymore when new devices appear.
> Manually-deployed /etc/network/interfaces files that assume a specific
> device naming come to mind. We have tons of those at work.
Why would those break? Just having a manually-deployed
/etc/network/interfaces file that uses names like "eth0" should not
break upgrades, because as mentioned in the part you quoted, the
existing already-generated rules should still trigger and keep renaming
the same card to eth0. So you need to assume something more to have an
example of a problem case.