> > change the installer workflow so that instead of selecting a LUKS label > for me the installer prompts me for what I want the LUKS label to be
I wanted to expound on my particular feature request of letting the user select the LUKS name and how that relates to changing the LUKS name to one based on UUID. From the merge request: instead of e.g. vda2_crypt, the mapping will be called luks-<uuid> 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 3) Offer the UUID based name to the user by pre-populating it in the dialogue box so if they find the name acceptable they can simply confirm it 4) Ensure that the LUKS name is configurable via preseed so automated installs still allow the user to have the name they want It may make sense to apply similar changes to the volume group if a user is setting up LVM via the installer. It certainly seems desirable to me to have consistent behavior between the LVM and LUKS configuration phases during install. 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. On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 3:38 PM Tyler Riddle <cardboardaardv...@gmail.com> 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. > > > I agree that using the physical volume block device name is bad > > because this name may not be persistent. > > Notwithstanding the merit of this I wanted to make sure it's understood > this is different from my feature request which would be to change the > installer workflow so that instead of selecting a LUKS label for me the > installer prompts me for what I want the LUKS label to be similar to the > way that the LVM configuration workflow works. > > Also thank you for giving my feature request some attention. > > On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 3:29 PM Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Pascal Hambourg <pas...@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 (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> >> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant >> >
