On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 13:11 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 03.06.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Marco d'Itri: > > On Jun 03, Vincent Danjean <vdanjean.ml@free.fr> wrote: > > > >>> stretch+1 (or maybe +2): > >>> - Check existance/non-emptiness of > >>> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules in udev.preinst, > >>> Show critical debconf note, and refuse to upgrade > >> No. It is always a real pain when a preinst script fails. > > This part is not negotiable, because: > > > >> So, you can show a debconf note, try (or not) to migrate the file > >> automatically, remove (or comment-out) the 70-persistent-net.rules, > >> or ... but, please, do not write a preinst script that fails > >> because the admin did not update its config before upgrading. > > None of these solutions is applicable: either the upgrade can continue > > or the network interfaces names will change with unpredictable > > consequences. > > Does anyone remember how linux-base handled this when there was the > /dev/hd* to /dev/sd* transition. Did it bail out if it failed to do the > conversion? It gave the option to retry conversion (assuming you manually fix something before answering) or to continue without automatic conversion. In that case the old kernel version would generally still be available as a fallback, whereas this is of course not true with udev. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Editing code like this is akin to sticking plasters on the bleeding stump of a severed limb. - me, 29 June 1999
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part