On 2019-07-02 at 08:37, Curt wrote: > On 2019-07-02, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> /usr/share/doc/udev/README.Debian.gz has a section on the subject >> of migration from the old naming scheme to the new one. Although it >> does not seem to state as much explicitly, from that section (and >> other parts of the file related to interface names), it appears as >> if this detail may apply only to machines running systemd. In >> particular, the file's multiple references to >> /etc/systemd/network/99-default.link seem as if they may be >> relevant. > > Well, in the bug thread 919390 referenced below Martin Pitt does say > > We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version > of systemd, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. > > "in the latest version of systemd." That's an artifact of the fact that udev is maintained as part of the systemd source package, because it's maintained upstream as part of the systemd project. If my understanding is correct, committing a change to the Debian udev package means committing a change to the systemd package collection's changelog. I consider that maintenance situation to have unfortunate negative consequences, and this is one of them, albeit one of the more minor examples. >> Searching /usr/share/doc/udev/changelog.Debian.gz for 'interfaces' >> found a reference to bug 919390, which seems to be about someone >> reporting this behavior as a bug. That bug has been closed as >> "fixed upstream", and that closure is what I found in the >> changelog. The patch which fixes the bug was committed as being a >> revert of an earlier change. That commit happened in January, and >> the package was released to unstable on January 27th; it's long >> since made it to testing, i.e., buster. > > That appears to be correct from a rapid perusal of the referenced > bug. > >> It's still possible that there's other activity which affects all >> of this and which I've missed (related to the non-udev systemd >> packages, most likely), but at a glance, it looks as if the release >> notes and the README alike may be inaccurate / out of date. Even if >> they aren't, it looks as if they may be incomplete, by describing >> only the situation as it affects machines with systemd. > > Not even that, it seems (no longer affects systemd). Have you confirmed that? It seems possible that on a systemd machine, things in other packages (such as whatever would provide that 99-default.link file, which unfortunately - because it's under /etc/ - can't be easily found through 'apt-file search') might still be overriding 70-persistent-net.rules, even with this change reverted. >> Although I don't run systemd on this machine, and my second system >> which used to have it (and I think still does) doesn't use it as >> the init system, I manage a very minor server at work which does >> use it as init system. In the event that we actually upgrade that >> server rather than migrating its service to another machine, this >> change may wind up being relevant to me; I'll want to keep it in >> mind. > > I was going to upgrade to Buster a couple of weeks ahead of time, > taking the bull by the horns for once rather than procrastinating, > which is my ultimate tendency in life, and began reading the release > notes (for the wrong architecture, but, come on, nobody's perfect). > It never crossed my mind to doubt the accuracy of those notes until > yesterday when Greg piped up. > > Maybe we should file a bug report against the release notes. If we can confirm that the behavior described is inaccurate (i.e., that 70-persistent-net.rules still works, even on a latest-buster machine running full-on systemd), then yes, I think that would be definitely best. We're a bit late for it, given that the release is scheduled for the coming Friday or Saturday (I forget which), but at least reporting it couldn't hurt. (Assuming there isn't a report about it already; I haven't checked.) -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature