XPost: linux.debian.maint.boot

On 20/04/2025 at 21:52, Tyler Riddle wrote:

Package: debian-installer

The right package is actually partman-crypto.

when setting up a LUKS device the installer selects a
name based on the block device backing the encrypted storage and I don't see a
way to override or change it. I'm not fond of the naming scheme used to pick the LUKS label so I wind up changing it after install. It's not a huge deal but
I would definitely prefer being able to pick my own label during install instead of having to go back and change it after install.

I agree that using the physical volume block device name is bad because
this name may not be persistent.

FWIW an open merge request proposed a naming scheme based on LUKS UUID: <https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-crypto/-/merge_requests/9>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.boot

Hi,

Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> (2025-04-20):

I agree that using the physical volume block device name is bad
because this name may not be persistent.

FWIW an open merge request proposed a naming scheme based on LUKS
UUID: <https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-crypto/-/merge_requests/9>

I realize it's been open for a while but I'd rather not change something
like this this late during the release cycle, so it'd be best to look at
it after Trixie is released.


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmgFZ0kACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSCfehAAuxOmvWOH20GNGKE1V524AVsQNABTesXPNN7s3hCuYeVIiIJy6JIqhm+Q AgiGrWpFYbVngZ5ficAs7YsUiljangINkyloTFdCeVlW+6E8qXCDw9ZwPMevyrKe v/vsCHbRgHwa/trmWajH+i27NyyVBAKo7kQOH6/Q5bOW486nDGV3cmHCMeaUcrAV ZHgSMnIn+OCcQQGveOMKlVkr/JQtsi/wq3MjsZ8VbimTgxIil/437VLt03yhMpAA 1r8XEthm+GgpkQ5w2+sPmghDvpshlhHFxbNY9b/3qFDK0q/ie9UwhvP4WvoFYHp6 ZcgOJkYyCqEc8NZCX0X3fQbkzICOYYTDPQIJYBhrZYHxdUU4eBMobLUhXrxP+gq8 8SXRjo+K5AA302d+RB2ykHnbSLgy8Lytn9QuljalBnoMiGXzw+V05Szt+xf884iS i8km0HXyEmUx/bl6smvqFKuUZtJVsK23R17gdCv6RsiXbTTjRJ3AohxPVzixzbKI 0SusIX1b8c/dSia+f8ivyOMVySHFmOU2RTgLNnkTVELhKS7897q9kZ7Goam1EeyN QA0jx7DYm7f48zOTJwSPxCzkf0P2pyRDUKcsEfoVVulRpOcta3Q1fFA8WxOzD4F7 5qc6Cz3XfVzVXa1YI+bj0uHT5hbpyusfLLiID28HMBYBamvrfGI=
=DTj0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*

XPost: linux.debian.maint.boot

Control: reassign -1 partman-crypto 131

On 20/04/2025 at 23:38, Tyler Riddle wrote:

I saw a comment about how the feature request belongs in partman-crypto.
I'm happy to re-report this there if that is where it belongs.

Done.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 3:29 PM Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> (2025-04-20):

FWIW an open merge request proposed a naming scheme based on LUKS
UUID:
<

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-crypto/-/merge_requests/9> >>
I realize it's been open for a while but I'd rather not change something
like this this late during the release cycle, so it'd be best to look at
it after Trixie is released.

I did not intend to advocate this MR which I consider mostly cosmetic
and quite recent by d-i standards. Some MRs which aim to fix more severe
bugs are much older, even older than bookworm release.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.boot

Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> (2025-04-21):

On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 3:29 PM Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> (2025-04-20):

FWIW an open merge request proposed a naming scheme based on LUKS
UUID:
<

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-crypto/-/merge_requests/9>

I realize it's been open for a while but I'd rather not change
something like this this late during the release cycle, so it'd be
best to look at it after Trixie is released.

I did not intend to advocate this MR which I consider mostly cosmetic
and quite recent by d-i standards.

Well, given I saw it and it seemed risky to me, I thought I'd say
something about this one in particular.

Some MRs which aim to fix more severe bugs are much older, even older
than bookworm release.

I'm not quite sure how to reply to that.


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmgHbHwACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSA0rhAAlP3yIVrNTezNcZJqM61DPIAol8eQYLXgl+PP3pdeDkLtsHserQ5z1pgH ENw9tH2mGDxGMlt7UxryuoW2zKBu5gswGVISNbh6dYJjbQf+6Ece8PrZHDsZVC2F X2KopF9xZA4baa0fq4lnz7m3L3JOp2Red8fwkc9jzlx+qAojhXTfiv+a8GDD/NH8 K7iKlCzXGYZ8bnNMZZ9+jprBj6Q+lvLc3NUNha+nxCYJo7qbAQSmyPDAenuZiCaO f0nL+J8/+ZPKcc/q6J9B6QKUGsikjsRBg3i6pIxjMxQDoiuNDNOryHW6hlI7HzH7 congAIOI6CeTM7OxP2afESucG3gKO27swZr7Ju+mhlGnSuYiICd78wdzl9FFVyqs R+7y5yrynXmh0haIJKheXz5A5LGFHS1YH+j1oCFSxnvdCSesuo82UyH/dxmeRrlc mdOI9P2XuHpejsRjOyp+YTunjEfVmog1dlmMhG7WfJ05C+FHuAj21yrzI/TDKEdt /qrY7Yo+V/20+L4//8IOgBDrUR2Cx00CkLRoz8I42GwQuVFkeeeuGfJl2inHQj2N VJ4yRvFIyNLxLuy5O2KvK+sjMLf7ygolAxznTVNcvWldCr1GOt0oQbxxWhdLidFH dcnJMAmIRqzP9vxPloV+sw1ZdTrqXUZP5shXfFMpKafAaMWySk0=
=LeHu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*

XPost: linux.debian.maint.boot

Tyler Riddle <cardboardaardvark@gmail.com> (2025-04-22):

Not being a fan of having the backing block device be a part of the name
used for the LUKS config using the UUID seems like a very reasonable
change. However, as a sysadmin that has to juggle these things, I would rather not have to type out a UUID when I'm working on a system. Sure cut
and paste is a thing that can be done which helps cut down on the typing
but I am also able to formulate names myself that are shorter, easier to type, and will work for my use cases.

I suggest the following:
1) Change the default name to incorporate the UUID.
2) Update the workflow to prompt the user for their desired name

That benefits only users who care about that kind of things, so that
really doesn't seem to be a question that should get asked in the first
place.

I think this covers all concerns and imposes a very minimal level of
overhead for users who simply want to accept whatever defaults the
installer may select.

That would mean a new feature, localization, plus long term maintenance,
in addition to “very minimal level of overhead” for everyone.


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmgICM4ACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSBxyw/8CxyTkUtQAwp7TZKlD2DWetq5MIh3B9b4xbgacvpFeYbLS+SdSJFvAQj8 q/BaSYlfV8nPf595RAoWXGUhjNH4BLc/+WWm5N8CTe0Z71SUQczvOdHKryg7APaR NHDcEwURyQvTOuYkEkvE/ugSf2MFx4qWYy9AKOGFBkR1PXuUM2ute4PP8MWwTzGO /3Xyx3DlhOoZ3+lgt92HQ9ZeD45aksYeV4TAUp9Zk85x6wU3XAca1Gl9IlBnFz8N yX9AysVeJfkO12RSYQpDMdlW4xy0Ih4nab+4UVzz1WYW/9qOUq3TYmEWNJax+v7H HyY6glHKX3FQeOAHPzqGoZFKeKGbO6fSO+EdckHCXQpb8ER5lSgvnlFrzvOIQ8Jf YYuUMEMrwtICuVTC9zBP6MHg1f9O1S12IFssMAroU5SnJXKcJaX3+qEiBFk0Kcvf GhKnYz4AO5oL+gv7blKr0oZ/w5g/vyNB2PSSE9TDg+b6eK2h5VNsKpYv3fGjMWSa H4B34Of/8M6qJub58S2d2Jl4kFH82tkpg3G5buBw616hfFpZ6uLsCjtxL9/W0Y0B oW0FR94RdPwK92wP3fDMPMWEZb9PpPq9zNHEPD7QOkBVxioZdxzUIqbhmgX8PcUD gsWQ6qQ/nsra1YsBdyyLwFf3C8Gb+0gDc4vOmH4IiL1qgi+ki0k=
=D6uv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*

XPost: linux.debian.maint.boot

Tyler Riddle <cardboardaardvark@gmail.com> (2025-04-22):

I appreciate that there is development effort associated with features but
my interpretation of what you are saying is that concerns about a LUKS name can be ignored at least in terms of the Debian installer. Is my interpretation incorrect?
Does this mean that concerns regarding long term maintenance would result
in a patch to implement my desired behavior being rejected? Or that to be accepted such a patch would have to not only include the desired change but also all localization requirements to be implemented as well?

I've just explained that efforts required to support that aren't as
trivial as you seem to think they are.

That benefits only users who care about that kind of things, so that
really doesn't seem to be a question that should get asked in the
first place.

Are you suggesting that caring about the LUKS name is an irrelevant
detail and such concerns are unreasonable? Please clarify if my
takeaway is incorrect here.

No. I understand this might important to you and a minority of users,
and what I wrote is that the default installation is about the vast
majority of users, who likely don't care at all and shouldn't be
bothered with that question. (Independently of the cost topic mentioned
above.

Don't expect more engagement from my side on either bugs.


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmgIIewACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSDcoQ/+LLGBGEXq/CnfP3SjDrS6et7hpw0tO1KVf1YGA9wEbCBI7sJmjG+r1ROd 4IdGKkSpTtkEfWRqGqsJQPCbjMWeJmIMAeu7skORI1AYHplrahyvThFTgG2Dca6N FOS68aLkgqYwtyKV5ewClvcDQT+XafJDUVaSj+BFeviIW20bWbS9MV1YY1AJufnH xdsL6MHrZmIcqETSGWpQh3+rgfdc7skLm/cxt33fkFzyufrKUJczi7HgcDqxd7JD gVVTy2Rde2F2MKZqun9vzBpDDtI824zD3pS3jdOLGSY9kRvLawarOmxVCNmMp8Su mmFEPSSg+neeuJhS9nXwTcl6olHNvCumzt4RCcBZiK+9pxdJRMIg7I8q+XdbU/Fv GynzAqgWFChCvh2JW9G7fgxMZznHU280HLIdYXu4NN5Mx6pue9DpaUuTR1Mruruz Q3+z5ates8HtBzub4O1bUc//QtELkGYAo4ZnptvcJ0hv8gSkNPQCNj4o6Ytpcu2r gAKhybx9G/pcK60T4hXzNcXYD68gjFTvYz2Ng1i5fH59rGXgz3iJfQ3GaIkb99At xVDARwovy7s5OtS6viZLyC5vTcNK3EY9H3WB/JgeuB6msKTb8DHkNk3HKSruIKfP HYYzsbZbVKvpZGv9i+s274FRVDUe7peo8P4PA4LyArYXUJUUmnc=
=8tn3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*