[systemd-devel] Unmentioned 209 change: 80-net-name-slot.rules is gone

Samuli Suominen ssuominen at gentoo.org
Fri Feb 21 08:06:13 PST 2014

On 21/02/14 17:37, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek at 21/02/14 13:58 did
> gyre and gimble:
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:24:58PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey guys,
>>>> This commit caught me by surprise:
>>>>    http://git.zx2c4.com/systemd/commit/?id=daeb71a36a98834664e4d95773a3629b746f4db8
>>>> It wasn't in the NEWS or the mailing list post for 209, so when
>>>> updating I encountered a bit of unexpected behavior. I see that I can
>>>> disable persistent names using net.ifnames=0 in my kernel command
>>>> line. Still not certain what the equivalent of the udev rule override
>>>> is, though.
>>> Yeah, that should have been in the NEWS. Sorry about that.
>>> This is what we do in Arch to preserve the behavior form v208:
>>> <https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/systemd.install?h=packages/systemd#n65>.
>> It should still be added... Lots of people look at NEWS in the web git
>> interface, or long after the release.
> I updated the wiki page:
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames
> Col

udev/rules.d/80-net-setup-link.rules is only a trigger for
systemd/network/99-default.link.rules where the actual
order of preference is recorded
wouldn't it be better to override the actual configuration, where you
can easily change the order of preference the interfaces get
renamed to, than the dummy trigger?

because the upstream wiki was updated to mention the .rules, then
someone changed my instructions here:
and that looks like an regression, rather than improvement, to me

can we record the overriding of 99-default.link instead of
80-net-setup-link.rules, please?

- Samuli

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list