Russ Allbery wrote: >Kay Sievers <k...@vrfy.org> writes: > > Hmm, why would upgrades break? > > > The old file would still be there, rename the devices (if you keep the > > patch to swap names, which upstream does not support any more), and take > > precedence over tht new names; the old rules file would just not be > > updated anymore when new devices appear. > > Manually-deployed /etc/network/interfaces files that assume a specific > device naming come to mind. We have tons of those at work.
Why would those break? Just having a manually-deployed /etc/network/interfaces file that uses names like "eth0" should not break upgrades, because as mentioned in the part you quoted, the existing already-generated rules should still trigger and keep renaming the same card to eth0. So you need to assume something more to have an example of a problem case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1378769281.30447.8.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
