On Nov 06, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As a distribution developer I highly value solutions like this which do > > not require patching every application which deals with interface names > > and then teaching users about aliases which only work in some places and > > are unknown to the kernel. > Fair enough - but would you object if we changed the naming scheme > from eth%d to something else? I suppose that this would depend on what else. :-) Since you want radical changes I recommend that you design the new persistent naming infrastructure in a way that will allow root to choose to use the classic naming scheme, or many users will scream a lot and at least some distributions will do it anyway. I also expect that providing choice at the beginning of development may lead to more acceptance later if and when the new scheme will have proved itself to be superior (at least in some situations). You have tought about this for a long time and if so far you have not found a solution which is widely considered superior then I doubt that one will appear soon. Providing your favourite naming scheme as an optional add on will immediately benefit those who like it and greatly reduce opposition from those who do not. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
