On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 09:11 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Right, I'm completely happy with the current behavior. I have no
> objections to the change. I just also don't particularly care; I've
> stopped using ifupdown and am using *.link units for network
> configuration, which makes all of this trivial and uninteresting and
> means I don't care in the slightest what names are assigned to
> interfaces.
Which means that while true, this was largely irrelevant:
On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 09:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Er, I saw this all the time without udev persistent naming. Every
> time we rebooted one of our servers, the four onboard NICs (of which
> we were only using one -- long story, but basically that's just what
> the systems came with out of the box and my employer at the time
> wasn't a big enough customer to customize the hardware) would get
> randomly different ethN device names assigned to them. That's *why*
> udev persistent naming was so important when we were using ifupdown
> to manage static network configuration on servers.
As I saw it the discussion pertinent to two classes of people:
(a) Those who typed in the device names regularly. As far as I can
tell those people either don't see kernels interface names changing
or don't care about it. I gather from the responses here there
quite a few people fit into this category.
I am sort of one. I often use my laptop to configure some
recalcitrant device. I like most don't see the kernel assigned
names change (because as Greg Kroah-Hartmanboth said, it's very
rare), and I wouldn't care if they did change because the are
managed by Network Manager. But when I'm doing the "bash (pun
intended) some device into submission" thing I use a USB dongle
which I have to manually configure and I detest having to enter
the new scheme's 16 character interface name multiple times.
(b) Those who enter the debian device names manually into config
files, and have machines that network device names even though
no one armed with a screw driver has been near the thing.
These people would very much care. I was asking whether they
exist. So far I've seen person say they are one.
To put it another way: there are a lot of opinions being expressed
here, but I suspect most aren't coming from people with skin in the
game.
As for *.link files, syntactically they like all systemd stuff are a
huge improvement on what came before them. But the old ugly udev rules
have one thing over them - they provide hooks for scripts to cover
cases they haven't thought of. Scripts seem to be an anathema to the
author's of systemd. While that remains true they will never be able
to replace udev rules in all cases.Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part