On Tue 27 Aug 2019 at 21:39:52 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 27 Aug 2019 at 15:50:31 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 August 2019 14:58:37 Tyler D wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:45 PM Gene Heskett <ghesk...@shentel.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've just swapped machines because that failed one got nailed by a > > > > lightning surge while I was in the shop with a heart attack. 3 > > > > different psu's didn't restore the green led in a decade old dell, > > > > so I swapped the whole box except for the HD. > > > > > > > > But udevs UN-persistent rules have apparently run out of eth0 names, > > > > renaming the only ethernet port it has to eth2. So I either rename > > > > it to eth2 in /e/n/i, or kill the rule that advances the name. > > > > Since those old dells only come with one port, I'd much druther have > > > > a fixed name. > > > > > > > > What, in wheezy, /lib/udev/rules.d rule do I nuke so eth0 remains > > > > eth0 regardless of which box I put that drive in? > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > I usually just blow away /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules to > > > solve stuff like that... I'm not absolutely sure that's the same in > > > Wheezy though. > > > > I'll do it, but the date on it is today, so I suspect something > > in /lib/udev/rules.d is behind the re-write. And thats probably where > > to apply the nuclear option. They really should have renamed it > > 70-un-persistent-net. T'would have been a much more accurate > > description. > > In spite of posts about it in -user, you are just about clueless about > status of /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules, aren't you? > > As for wheezy - deary me; we are living in the past.
Evidently, Gene never got round to writing the script mentioned in: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/05/msg00707.html which would have cleaned /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules already. Cheers, David.
