Re: udev being an ass
On Tue 27 Aug 2019 at 21:39:52 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> On Tue 27 Aug 2019 at 15:50:31 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 August 2019 14:58:37 Tyler D wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:45 PM Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've just swapped machines because that failed one got nailed by a
> > > > lightning surge while I was in the shop with a heart attack. 3
> > > > different psu's didn't restore the green led in a decade old dell,
> > > > so I swapped the whole box except for the HD.
> > > >
> > > > But udevs UN-persistent rules have apparently run out of eth0 names,
> > > > renaming the only ethernet port it has to eth2. So I either rename
> > > > it to eth2 in /e/n/i, or kill the rule that advances the name.
> > > > Since those old dells only come with one port, I'd much druther have
> > > > a fixed name.
> > > >
> > > > What, in wheezy, /lib/udev/rules.d rule do I nuke so eth0 remains
> > > > eth0 regardless of which box I put that drive in?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > I usually just blow away /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules to
> > > solve stuff like that... I'm not absolutely sure that's the same in
> > > Wheezy though.
> >
> > I'll do it, but the date on it is today, so I suspect something
> > in /lib/udev/rules.d is behind the re-write. And thats probably where
> > to apply the nuclear option. They really should have renamed it
> > 70-un-persistent-net. T'would have been a much more accurate
> > description.
>
> In spite of posts about it in -user, you are just about clueless about
> status of /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules, aren't you?
>
> As for wheezy - deary me; we are living in the past.
Evidently, Gene never got round to writing the script mentioned in:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/05/msg00707.html
which would have cleaned /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
already.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: