On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 15:06 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 15:50 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > Hey. > > > > I'm not the maintainer, so in the end it's of course not my decision... > > > > > > > > Am 23. September 2022 12:04:16 MESZ schrieb Luca Boccassi > > <bl...@debian.org>: > > > On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:45:11 +0100 Guilhem Moulin <guil...@debian.org> > > > wrote: > > > We'd greatly appreciate it if you could please rename the downstream- > > > specific one > > > > ... but isn't that a rather unfortunate idea, effectively just confusing > > users of cryptsetup? > > > > > > crypttab is not a canonical systemd configuration file - if anything at > > all, it's rather cryptsetup configuration file. > > Also, the Debian crypttab specifics aren't just about initramfs... these > > options work for any "normal" mappings, too,... so I seems that placing > > them in some initramfs specific manpage wouldn't really fit either. > > > > > > Also most users in Debian will set up their dm- crypt volumes with that, > > which btw. and thanks to the efforts of Jonas and Guilhem works quite > > nicely and powerful. > > > > > > At least last time I've checked systemd's cryptsetup integration hadn't > > support for "FDE"... and if that's still the case, one could anyway argue > > how serious it can be used - at least for some of the scenarios that DE > > protects against. > > > > > > Last but not least, wasn't Debian's crypttab there first? Like much earlier > > as systemd? > > > > > > > > So given these three points, why should cryptsetup's manpage change and not > > systemd's? > > > > Just when systemd would claim the config file as its, which it clearly > > isn't, doesn't seem to be a valid reason. > > > > And don't get this wrong was systemd-bashing, I like it actually quite a > > lot,... but here I see rather just drawbacks, especially confusion amongst > > any current users as well as implying that systemd's crypttab would have > > any more official or canonical status than that of Debian's, which it has > > not. > > > > Doesn't systemd prefix most of its manpages with systemd? Wouldn't that be > > a much more satisfying option for both sides of users? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > Chris > > The problem is, what's upstream and what's not. Everywhere else, the > crypttab manpage shows something completely different from what it does > on Debian. And that's a problem, it doesn't make the situation better > but just adds confusion. > If upstream cryptsetup shipped it, then you'd have been right, but it > does not. > > We no longer live in a world where each distro is a world in its own, > completely insulated from everything else, and that's a good thing > IMHO. Also, information is not siloed either - if you google > 'crypttab', it's the upstream's systemd manpage that comes up. If the > Debian-specific one had a Debian-specific name, it would (should?) come > up first when searched for specifically.
We could patch systemd's to have a link to Debian's near the top, with a one-liner explanation? That should be easy to maintain and retain visibility? -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
