fedora-users October 2011 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > fedora-users archives
fedora-users: Re: Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better tha

Re: Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

From: Thomas Dineen <tdineen_at_nospam>
Date: Thu Oct 13 2011 - 00:45:52 GMT
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Gentle People:

       Keep in mind that I have the up most respect for the volunteer
Fedora developers and their efforts!

       Do we need to have some sort of regularity forum or regime
to control changes to the look and feel of the Fedora Code?

       Keep in mind that I am speaking from the users standpoint,
where I am seeing a lot of changes that:
a) Seriously annoy and inconvenience the user.
b) Seem to have little logical justification or utility.

      Maybe we need to have Forum like this one where we discuss
and approve these changes before they are implemented?

      For example the proponents provide a (Short) written proposal
and justification, then interested parties are encourages to comment on
the implications of the proposed change. Collateral damage? Who else
will be required to make changes to what packages? How are users
affected? Existing scripts and applications?

Thomas Dineen

On 10/12/2011 5:23 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> Especially when a new biosdevname package is installed and it
> decides the name is no longer p4p1, but is now p6p1.
> All the iptables rules that refer to the interface name
> are broken.
> The ifcfg-p4p1 file needs to be renamed and edited.
> Wasn't the theory propounded that these new names
> would cause less confusion?
> (And why was having some disks named hda0 versus sda0
> confusing, so we had to change all the names to sda0?
> Can these two theories be made compatible? :-).

-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines