On Jun 26, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote: > > Actually it requires us to keep maintaining the > > Revert-udev-network-device-renaming patch as long as there will be > > systems with a 70-persistent-net.rules file renaming eth* to eth*. > The other solution would be to upstream that patch (maybe as a kernel > option if that is relevant). This cannot happen since the patch actually reverts an upstream change. > > I believe that firmware-based device names work well enough in practice > > since RHEL 7 uses them by default: I tend to trust a market-based > > approach to maintenability more than anecdote from a very selected > > population like the debian-devel@ subscribers. > Oh, how nice is that... So our opinions don't count, and Red Hat is just > always right! Opinions do not make a statistic, indeed. And you have not been paying attention, because right here I have expressed many times disagreement with some Red Hat decisions. > All from redhat. /me not surprised... Yes, at this point it is not a surprise that they produce good documentation and we do not. > So your proposal is: if the default is unusable (like above), then the > poor user has to find a way to fix that... I'm not convince that this is > what we want. I'd very much prefer a usable default. Me too, but there is none that we can use. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
pgp1DOp_bHMrR.pgp
Description: PGP signature