Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:59:07PM +0000, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > The udevd service has a long history of providing predicatable names for > > block devices and others. For Fedora 19 we'd like to provide the same for > > network interfaces, following a similar naming scheme, but only as > > fallback if not other solution such as biosdevname is installed or the > > administrator manually defined network interface names via udev rules or > > the old network scripts. > [...] > > This feature is about enabling this as default in Fedora, but only as a > > fallback if the user/administrator did not manually assign names to interfaces > > via udev rules, or via the old networking scripts, or if biosdevname is > > installed. > > This seems to invent yet another new naming scheme. We just went through > this pain, and the biosdevname scheme went through several iterations in the > field and represents real-world lessons learned. Is there a compelling > reason to make the systemd/udev policy for Fedora not just follow the > existing solution to the same problem embodied in biosdevname? (Then, we > could just phase out biosdevname.) biosdevname naming isn't apparently consistent across versions. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782145#c21 The problems are roughly this: - biosdevname only provides predictable naming for machines with SMBIOS type 9 & type 41 records - For other machines, it does 'best effort' based off of heuristics and attempting to enumerate all the devices... which gives weird/unpredictable results. This code has the benefit of: - covering more device types (not just BIOSes with type 9 & type 41) - not attempting to do heuristics that name devices via enumeration However, it does have the large disadvantage of changing the namespace used. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
