Web lists-archives.com

Re: Naming of network devices - how to improve it in buster




Russell Stuart <russell-debian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 09:11 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Right, I'm completely happy with the current behavior.  I have no
>> objections to the change.  I just also don't particularly care; I've
>> stopped using ifupdown and am using *.link units for network
>> configuration, which makes all of this trivial and uninteresting and
>> means I don't care in the slightest what names are assigned to
>> interfaces.

> Which means that while true, this was largely irrelevant:

It was only relevant in that you had said that you suspected the root
problem that people are attempting to solve here was a non-problem because
devices always got consistent names anyway.  This isn't true in my
experience, and I wanted to be sure that you knew that.

The rest of the discussion is about *how* to give devices consistent names
by default.  I have no particular opinion on that, since I do that with
systemd using *.link or *.network files, which works great, which I would
recommend to anyone else, and which makes the whole thing a non-issue as
far as I'm concerned.

I'm happy to bow out of the process of consensus on how to solve
consistent naming for all the people who don't want to use the systemd
facility that handles this.

> As for *.link files, syntactically they like all systemd stuff are a
> huge improvement on what came before them.  But the old ugly udev rules
> have one thing over them - they provide hooks for scripts to cover cases
> they haven't thought of.  Scripts seem to be an anathema to the author's
> of systemd.  While that remains true they will never be able to replace
> udev rules in all cases.

I didn't think anyone was claiming they would, so I'm not sure why you
felt like it was necessary to say this.  Lest there be any doubt, I of
course agree with your last sentence.

systemd's approach of providing declarative interfaces to do specific
things rather than a rat's nest of shell scripts is a huge feature for me,
personally, but I'm happy to co-exist in the project with people who think
differently.  :)  I do wish we'd learn from that for our maintainer
scripts, though....

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxx)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>