Re: udev being an ass, SOLVED
On Thursday 29 August 2019 15:23:42 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > and yet you can't actually describe what you DO want to happen.
> >
> > I just did, in a step by step description, Greg. How you choose to
> > understand it is up to you.
>
> I just reviewed
> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/08/msg01389.html> again.
> There is nothing in it about how you want interface names to be
> assigned.
>
> There isn't even a single interface name mentioned. Not one.
> No instances of "eth0" or "eno0" or "enp2s6" or anything.
>
> All you talk about are hosts files and DNS, with a side of offtopic
> medical issues.
>
> I can only conclude that you don't understand what anyone is talking
> about. I think I've wasted enough time on this thread.
My main point is that a scheme to give consistent names to an interface,
goes completely aglay when the drive is moved to a different machine. It
does not matter what the interfaces name was, never has and never will.
In the instant case it was eth1, but it became a totally non-existent
eth2 according to the last stanza of /e/u/r.d/70-persistent-net.rules.
An eth2 which could not be brought on line by the /e/n/i settings for
eth1.
So as far as I'm concerned, the current scheme to "assure consistent net
port names", is an abject failure. What I wanted was a foolproof method
to reset this whole circus to square 1 and keep it there. The puzzle to
me is why did it take a weeks worth of name calling and denegrateing
each other to finally elicit a working answer.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: