installed eudev-1.0 on new system. no 70-persistent-net.rules file after reboot. I think this version should have blocked status Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. rm /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules (or new system) 2. udevadm test --action=add /sys/class/net/eth0 starting 'write_net_rules' 'write_net_rules' [11058] exit with return code 1
Created attachment 352284 [details] emerge info
Created attachment 352286 [details] udevadm log
(In reply to Andrew Aladjev from comment #0) > installed eudev-1.0 on new system. no 70-persistent-net.rules file after > reboot. I think this version should have blocked status > > Reproducible: Always > > Steps to Reproduce: > 1. rm /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules (or new system) > 2. udevadm test --action=add /sys/class/net/eth0 > > > > starting 'write_net_rules' > 'write_net_rules' [11058] exit with return code 1 Yeah the rule writing is broken. _AxS_ should be looking into this. Unfortunately upstrem is moving so far past this we may have to drop it too. I'm not sure what you mean by blocked status, this is the only known issue and there really is no alternative if we cant get write_net_rules working as udev doesn't provide it.
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #3) > (In reply to Andrew Aladjev from comment #0) > > installed eudev-1.0 on new system. no 70-persistent-net.rules file after > > reboot. I think this version should have blocked status > > > > Reproducible: Always > > > > Steps to Reproduce: > > 1. rm /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules (or new system) > > 2. udevadm test --action=add /sys/class/net/eth0 > > > > > > > > starting 'write_net_rules' > > 'write_net_rules' [11058] exit with return code 1 > > Yeah the rule writing is broken. _AxS_ should be looking into this. > Unfortunately upstrem is moving so far past this we may have to drop it too. > > I'm not sure what you mean by blocked status, this is the only known issue > and there really is no alternative if we cant get write_net_rules working as > udev doesn't provide it. Ah you have a fix on github, good! I'll pull and test and if it works I'll push out 1.1 in a day or so.
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #4) > Ah you have a fix on github, good! I'll pull and test and if it works I'll > push out 1.1 in a day or so. I've merged the pull request upstream. BTW, I don't like the way upstream does pull requests. The commit message says you're the author, but it gives commit authorship to me. Its clear who wrote the patch but if you want it recommitted with git level authorship set to you, I'll be happy to do that. I don't get why github does it that way, if you sent a patch git format-patch it wouldn't do that. *shrug* I'll have 1.1 out in a bit after I check that I don't need something else in tehre in the mean time.
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #5) > (In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #4) > > Ah you have a fix on github, good! I'll pull and test and if it works I'll > > push out 1.1 in a day or so. > > I've merged the pull request upstream. BTW, I don't like the way upstream > does pull requests. The commit message says you're the author, but it gives > commit authorship to me. Its clear who wrote the patch but if you want it > recommitted with git level authorship set to you, I'll be happy to do that. > I don't get why github does it that way, if you sent a patch git > format-patch it wouldn't do that. > > *shrug* > > I'll have 1.1 out in a bit after I check that I don't need something else in > tehre in the mean time. Never mind, I fixed the commit message properly.
While not exactly a duplicate of #472328, your fix plus another restores the rule generator. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 472328 ***
