Proposed F19 Feature: systemd/udev Predictable Network Interface Names

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 23:03:31 UTC 2013


On 01/24/2013 10:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:57 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Matthew Miller (mattdm at fedoraproject.org) said:
>>>> But I guess we simply have a different definition of a user here. Your
>>>> definition is probably closer to what the page calls "admins", which is
>>>> covered by the next lines in the feature page, which you didn't paste:
>>> Right. For Fedora, developers and admins are an important subset of users.
>>>
>>>> "As biosdevname is installed by default ...  most administrators won't
>>>> see this either. "
>>> If the new scheme really is better, we should suck it up and make the whole
>>> change. It'd be better to do what we can to make that transition easier --
>>> like using similar names were possible -- than to have a weird mixed state.
>> So, thinking - if we were to go this route, I think we'd want a clean
>> break, where we don't use biosdevname at all if we're using this.
> I am +1 to this in theory, but as Kay notes, it rather makes this a more
> prominent feature in practice. We've gone from 'effectively non-default
> brand new persistent naming scheme' to 'brand-new persistent naming
> scheme completely replacing all previous ones'. Which gives me something
> of a fit of wibbles.
>
> Is it worth at this point stepping back and asking whether this change
> is still appropriate for F19 as-is, or whether we should view the *final
> goal* as being to migrate wholesale to the new udev/systemd way of doing
> it, but maybe think about getting there in stages? This may wind up
> right back at the original proposal where we include the new method but
> don't make it the default for F19, but with a different outlook: the
> intent being to make it default for F20. At least we could try and get
> people to take a look at it first, that way. This code seems pretty new,
> and just dumping it straight in as default seems to risk going through
> exactly the same process biosdevname did.

It's best to rip the bandage of this in one release.

The churn from this should have been more or less covered when we 
implement biosdevname so the fallout from this change should be minimal 
if any...

JBG


More information about the devel mailing list