[pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#981405: Bug#981405: man crypttab file conflict with systemd

[Luca Boccassi]

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 <bluca at debian.org>:
> > > On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:45:11 +0100 Guilhem Moulin <guilhem at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-cryptsetup-devel/attachments/20220923/a6693699/attachment.sig>