udev rules in /etc/udev/rules.d/ ignored/not-loaded on boot; exec manually OK at shell ?

[pgnd]

> "enp5s0" is a predictable name how systemd/udev configures them, not
> the kernel. When a netif is renamed then this results in a "move"
> event, not "add" or "bind" or "change".
> 
> Generally, in the vast majority of cases rules should be written with
> either a check of ACTION!="remove" or ACTION=="remove" depending on
> whether they should apply if the device is there, or when it goes
> away. The important part here is: don't list the many positive
> actions, but instead only specify the single negative action
> (i.e. "remove"). That's both more robust and safer for future actions
> to be added.


useful, thx.

but still, with

	edit /etc/udev/rules.d/99-test.rules
-		ACTION=="add|bind|change", SUBSYSTEM=="net", KERNEL=="enp5s0", RUN+="/bin/touch /etc/test-touch.txt"
+		ACTION!="remove", SUBSYSTEM=="net", KERNEL=="enp5s0", RUN+="/bin/touch /etc/test-touch.txt"

after boot, nothing done

	ls -al /etc/test-touch.txt
		(empty)

and nothing logged,

	journalctl -b | grep 99-test
		(empty)

but, MOVING the same rule to different location

	mv /etc/udev/rules.d/99-test.rules /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/
	reboot

then, it *IS* exec'd,

	ls -al /etc/test-touch.txt
		-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Dec 22 08:20 /etc/test-touch.txt

but still NOT logged

	journalctl -b | grep 99-test
		(empty)



The questions remain:

	Why does the rule FAIL to exec when in /etc/udev/rules.d path, but DOES exec when in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ ?

and

	Why is the rule read/load not logged in journal ?