Re: latest udev (0.114-2) problem (SOLVED)
Wayne Topa(linuxone@intergate.com) is reported to have said:
> Wayne Topa(linuxone@intergate.com) is reported to have said:
> > Mathias Brodala(info@noctus.net) is reported to have said:
> > > Hi Wayne.
> > >
> > > Wayne Topa, 23.08.2007 18:21:
> > > > I have an Athlon k7 box, running testing, as my gateway. Due to a new
> > > > system install, I had not upgraded in a few weeks. On the 21st I
> > > > decided that it was time and did the upgrade overnight. This morning
> > > > I rebooted the box to upgrade my sid partition and when I rebooted
> > > > testing, I had lost my my localnet connections.
> --<snip>-->
> >
> > I found a fix (?) with a google search but I can't try it until I
> > finish downloading a new kernel. It was on an Ubuntu Forum so just in
> > case I'll list it here. Not Tested Yet so take it with a grain of
> > salt.
> >
> > ----- Possible Fix ------------------
> > Create/Edit a file /etc/udev/rules.d/10-local.rules with the following content Code:
> >
> > KERNEL="eth*", SYSFS{address}=="00:10:5a:33:44:55" NAME="eth0"
> > KERNEL="eth*", SYSFS{address}=="00:0c:44:55:66:77" NAME="eth1"
> >
> > Just change the mac addresses to your own values from ifconfig.
> >
> > ----------------------------
>
> The fix did not work on this problem. I don't know enough about udev
> but I did think it looked like it would.
>
> The problem was not fixed by installing the 2.6.21-2 k7 kernel.
>
> The suggestion made by Wackojacko did work.
>
> I was able to boot with and without the above fix after I removed all
> rules in the /etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.rules file.
>
> Commenting out the rules did not work, removing them did. I have to
> test if it still works with the old 2.6.18 kernel, but if your
> interfaces get changed with the new udev on the 2.6.21-2 k7 kernel,
> this should fix it.
>
Confirmed. removing all of the entries in the
/etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.rules file works in the 2.6.18
kernels as well.
The question is, why would commented rules get read by udev and why
would it think a rule, made by a previous version of udev, wasn't
correct? Well I guess thats what _testing_ is for. It sure didn't
get caught in Sid.
Thanks to all that replied!
Wayne
--
I am a computer, dumber than any human and smarter than any
administrator.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to: