[pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#548900: Bug#492560: Bug#548900: udev update killed my LVM2 boot (sed: not found)

[maximilian attems]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Sheridan Hutchinson wrote:

> /9/30 Jonas Meurer <jonas at freesources.org>:
> >> c.) busybox should be a hard dependency on lvm2, or cryptsetup, as
> >> INDISPENSABLE for people with encrypted LVM2's to be able to boot
> >
> > no, lvm2, cryptsetup, mdadm, etc all can still be used without initramfs
> > on non-root partititions (or for lvm with lilo), thus a hard dependency
> > is the wrong way to go.
> > initramfs-tools already recommends busybox, and installing recommends is
> > the default in debian since lenny.
> 
> I disagree with your analysis, I do not see why people who don't
> install recommends should not expect packages and functionality to
> just work.
> 
> > additionally update-initramfs warns about missing busybox in case that
> > you have root on dm-crypt/lvm/dmraid/...:
> >
> > # update-initramfs -u
> > update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.30-1-amd64
> > Warning: Busybox is required for successful boot!
> 
> This warning is only shown if manually done like above, it is not
> shown when initramfs updates as a result of a trigger when using dpkg,
> apt, synaptic or aptitude.  If I had seen this warning, I would have
> heeded it.
> 
> > i guess the only real bug here is busybox not invoking update-initramfs,
> > all other issues you discovered where due to your special setup and you
> > ignoring warnings and docs. i suggest to close the bugreport for that
> > reason.
> 
> Firstly, while I thank you for your help I don't like your tone and I
> have spoken to everyone else with the utmost respect so I do have an
> expectation I'll receive the same courtesy.  Suggesting that I've
> ignored countless warnings and haven't read documentation is full of
> presumption:
> 
> a.) I didn't see a warning, as I explained above;
> b.) I have not see anything in any document that says that busybox is
> essential for systems with LVM2 encrypted partitions to be able to
> boot.  As an end-user, I have no way of knowing this to be the case.
> I do not however mind that it is the case, and normally Debian has
> appropriate dependencies so that things just work and I don't need to
> worry.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't perceive what is special about the desire to run
> systems with only the packages that are needed.
> 
> Again, thank you for your efforts in evaluating this bug report.  Even
> though I disagree with the final resolution, hopefully other users who
> get caught out by this will come across this in Google and find a
> solution.
> 

your box is simply broken if it does not foollow the debian reference,
which explicitly says that recommends have to be installed.
and yes you have negletected the big warnings.
tweaking Debian boxes is fine as long as you understand what you change
and can handle the consequences.