On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 at 20:41:34 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: >> Nope, removing 'cryptsetup-initramfs' was the right thing to do since >> you don't need to unlock anything at initramfs stage. > > Out of interest, assuming I *did* actually use cryptsetup (!) would it > have resulted an unbootable system? :)
Depends, the cryptsetup binaries wouldn't have been included to the initramfs image, but if the root device isn't encrypted then it's always possible to setup a chroot manually and run the “real” cryptsetup binary. (Assuming ‘cryptsetup-bin’ is installed, of course.) That being said, it's a bit strange to have devices that need to be present that early in the boot process (typically the resume device, or the device holding /usr; OTOH /home doesn't need to be present that early) when the root device itself isn't encrypted… Also, on systems with encrypted devices that need to be unlocked at initramfs stage, `update-initramfs -u` doesn't suggest to remove ‘cryptsetup-initramfs’. But perhaps we should ship a prerm script warning the user that removing the package was a terrible idea, and that they should most likely reinstall it before trying to reboot :-) -- Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
