Release Notes for buster: 70-persistent-net-rules still supported?

[andreimpopescu at gmail.com]

Full quote for some context, relevant part of the thread starts at 
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/07/msg00084.html

On Ma, 02 iul 19, 20:14:02, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 02 Jul 2019 at 10:22:56 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
> > On 2019-07-02 at 10:10, Curt wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2019-07-02, The Wanderer <wanderer at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > 
> > >>> Not even that, it seems (no longer affects systemd).
> > >> 
> > >> Have you confirmed that? It seems possible that on a systemd
> > >> machine, things in other packages (such as whatever would provide
> > >> that 99-default.link file, which unfortunately - because it's under
> > >> /etc/ - can't be easily found through 'apt-file search') might
> > >> still be overriding 70-persistent-net.rules, even with this change
> > >> reverted.
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/11436
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/ed30802324365dde6c05d0b7c3ce1a0eff3bf571
> > >  
> > >  Let's revert, and start with a clean slate. This fixes #11436.
> > > 
> > > (#11436 being 'network interface is renamed although NAME has been
> > > set by udev rule'.)
> > 
> > Yeah, I read that, although I didn't read #11436.
> > 
> > > Maybe I'm not understanding this (quite possible).
> > 
> > I think you're reading it the same way I am. I'm just questioning
> > whether what we're seeing here represents the whole picture, and partly
> > also whether this is the latest word on the subject.
> > 
> > It might be interesting to know when that section of the release notes
> > was last modified, relative to when this change was made.
> 
> Not long after 6th April 2019:
> 
>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2019/04/msg00012.html
> 
> 
> > > Somebody on an up-to-date Buster could perform Michael Biebl's bug 
> > > reproduction test:
> > 
> > In particular, someone on a machine running full-on systemd. My
> > available machines are either non-systemd or not systemd-as-init, so my
> > observed results aren't applicable.
> 
> My upgrade from stretch to buster left networking as it was before. My
> 70-persistent-net.rules is
> 
>  SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:90:dc:a2:4d:26",
>  ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
> 
> Following Curt's suggestion I removed the relevant module and rebooted.
> 'ip a' shows eth0. The advice in the Release Notes
> 
>  > ....you should be aware that udev in buster no longer supports the mechanism
>  > of defining their names via /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules.
> 
> does not accord with my experience. In the light of #919390 it seems
> doubtful to me that the "Migrating from legacy network interface names"
> section is useful.

Dear udev Maintainers,

Please kindly confirm this Release Notes entry is needed/correct/etc.
https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#migrate-interface-names

#919390 appears to contradict /usr/share/doc/udev/README.Debian.gz.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-systemd-maintainers/attachments/20190703/5005a1e3/attachment.sig>