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

Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster)

On 2019-07-02 at 10:10, Curt wrote:

> On 2019-07-02, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> 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.
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/11436
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/ed30802324365dde6c05d0b7c3ce1a0eff3bf571
>  Let's revert, and start with a clean slate. This fixes #11436.
> (#11436 being 'network interface is renamed although NAME has been
> set by udev rule'.)

Yeah, I read that, although I didn't read #11436.

> Maybe I'm not understanding this (quite possible).

I think you're reading it the same way I am. I'm just questioning
whether what we're seeing here represents the whole picture, and partly
also whether this is the latest word on the subject.

It might be interesting to know when that section of the release notes
was last modified, relative to when this change was made.

> Somebody on an up-to-date Buster could perform Michael Biebl's bug 
> reproduction test:

In particular, someone on a machine running full-on systemd. My
available machines are either non-systemd or not systemd-as-init, so my
observed results aren't applicable.

   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

Reply to: