On Wed 28 Aug 2019 at 03:07:24 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Tuesday 27 August 2019 23:54:02 David Wright wrote: > > On Tue 27 Aug 2019 at 19:51:21 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Tuesday 27 August 2019 17:44:18 David Wright wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > one must have a working network before any such script can be > > > posted. next fictitious request? > > > > I didn't ask you to post a script. Three years ago I suggested > > you write one that would erase the contents of > > /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and you replied: > > > > "Now thats a jolly good idea, so next time it has to start > > from scratch." > > > Its still a good idea, but I have a now faint memory of not doing it > because I couldn't figure out where in the init sequence to put it. > Maybe incorporate it as the first line of the if-up?
Possibly. But it does mean you could never check whether udev did its job correctly because you'd only ever see an empty/absent file. Perhaps better to install it as a /etc/init.d/foo script that's run by, say, a K09foo link in /etc/rc0.d/ (I take it you're using sysvinit in wheezy. I only have a fossil squeeze system to look at.) It appears that K08ifupdown would have run by then, assuming these K numbers are venerable. > > I guess you've forgotten that you had exactly the same problem > > with the persistence of /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules > > three years ago. If you'd implemented the script, you wouldn't have > > had the same problem today. Cheers, David.
