> but
> again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow
> for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic.
It's a welcome option but an important question seems to be; Why wasn't
this picked up in the dev cycle?.
This reminds me of udisks 8 months ago losing feat
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
> Christopher Head wrote:
>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> > There is a way for users to opt out if we default this to on, but I
>> > think the new naming scheme has advantages over the traditional eth*
>> > wlan* etc names.
>>
>> I think it sho
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 02:11:43AM +, Steven J. Long wrote:
> Christopher Head wrote:
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > > There is a way for users to opt out if we default this to on, but I
> > > think the new naming scheme has advantages over the traditional eth*
> > > wlan* etc names.
> >
>
Christopher Head wrote:
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > There is a way for users to opt out if we default this to on, but I
> > think the new naming scheme has advantages over the traditional eth*
> > wlan* etc names.
>
> I think it should be taken with a grain of salt. The page mentions how
> it l
On 2013-01-10, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 04:13 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> as you probably know by now, udev-197 has hit the tree.
>>
>> This new version implements a new feature called predictable
>> network interface names [1], which I have currently turned off for
>> l
