Re: udev being an ass
On Wed 28 Aug 2019 at 03:07:24 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 August 2019 23:54:02 David Wright wrote:
> > 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."
> >
> Its still a good idea, but I have a now faint memory of not doing it
> because I couldn't figure out where in the init sequence to put it.
> Maybe incorporate it as the first line of the if-up?
Possibly. But it does mean you could never check whether udev did its
job correctly because you'd only ever see an empty/absent file.
Perhaps better to install it as a /etc/init.d/foo script that's
run by, say, a K09foo link in /etc/rc0.d/ (I take it you're using
sysvinit in wheezy. I only have a fossil squeeze system to look at.)
It appears that K08ifupdown would have run by then, assuming these
K numbers are venerable.
> > 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: