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

Re: Proposal v2: enable stateless persistant network interface names

On Jun 25, Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> wrote:

> If the priority of the goals is realigned to make sense, then we must
> eliminate any solution that satisfies the no-state-file goal if it does
> not also satisfy the human-usable goal.  If this brings us back to where
> we currently are, so be it.  But please do not add significant cognitive
> burden on the humans who must use the interface names just to get rid of
> a state file.  Eliminating the state file is not worth it.
Please read the precedent thread which explained why we cannot continue 
supporting the old mechanism.
If the new names trouble you then you can just manually configure new 


Attachment: pgpyYW_rDhdub.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: