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

Bug#400886: marked as done (release-notes: device reodering section does not mention udev)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:21:30 +0100
with message-id <20070320012130.GA26935@javifsp.no-ip.org>
and subject line Included in Release Notes
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release-notes
Severity: normal

In section "4.5.5 Device enumeration reordering" of Etch release notes,
ifrename is recommended to solve re-odering problem in network devices.
As far as I know, the correct way to solve this problems with udev is to
edit /etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.rules file.

I think /etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.rules should be mentioned as
one of possible ways to set persistent names for network devices.

It may be useful to point to bug 363598 discussing udev vs ifrename
problems.

Thank you for your work.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (150, 'unstable'), (50, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-amd64
Locale: LANG=, LC_CTYPE=ru_RU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

-- 
Regards,
        Sasha.
Alexandra N. Kossovsky, software engineer.
e-mail: sasha@sanechka.spb.ru

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
I've added a note in the Release Notes that udev can also be used to solve
re-ordering probles in network devices.

Regards

Javier

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: