Re: udev being an ass
On Tue 27 Aug 2019 at 19:51:21 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 August 2019 17:44:18 David Wright wrote:
> > 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.
>
> one must have a working network before any such script can be posted.
> next fictitious request?
I didn't ask you to post a script. Three years ago I suggested
you write one that would erase the contents of
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and you replied:
"Now thats a jolly good idea, so next time it has to start
from scratch."
I guess you've forgotten that you had exactly the same problem
with the persistence of /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
three years ago. If you'd implemented the script, you wouldn't have
had the same problem today.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: