Christoph Anton Mitterer <cales...@scientia.net> writes: > Right now there is a rather fixed order in which things work (i.e. > phys->MD->LVM->dm-crypt->rootfs) out of the box (well in some cases at > least) and IIRC, due to some "obscure" code in the cryptsetup initramfs > scripts it works also with (dm-crypt->LVM)... but ideally all this > should be handled more generally...
> Looking over the bugs from the systemd package in Debian give quite some > concern here,... many things seem to not work yet (e.g. support for > cryptsetup key scripts)... and many other bugs seem to be quite old and > not having been worked on for very long. For whatever it's worth, I've been using systemd on a system with LVM and dm-crypt (with LUKS) for about a month now, in the dm-crypt -> LVM -> filesystem mode, and haven't had any trouble. The page you linked to makes several assertions that I find curious. That doesn't mean that they're wrong, but they seem somewhat contrary to my experience. For example, I'm not sure where "however, for we really should should try to avoid forcing users to use initramfs images, for setups where they're not strictly needed" comes from; I've been using initramfs images for every Debian system I run, and every Debian system Stanford runs, for so long that I can't remember when we originally changed. I don't understand why this would be something one would want to avoid. Similarly, I'm not sure why the focus on only adding necessary tools to the initramfs image. Surely this doesn't matter much if the tools are harmless when unneeded? Hm. I'm also not sure that this whole digression really belongs on this thread; maybe we should move it to debian-devel. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org