Re: Bug#237534: inst report: lots of partman and LVM issues
Hello,
Christian Perrier writes:
> Quoting Joey Hess (joeyh@debian.org):
>
> > > Not sure. Maybe "Partition disks" and "Partition disks (cfdisk)"
> > > since cfdisk might be a term people understand... but that's not ideal
> > > either. I'm sorry I don't have a good solution either. :/
> >
> > cfdisk is not used on all architectures. There's also the queston of
> > what to call partconf.
>
> In another thread, I suggested "Partition disks (expert)" for partconf
> and "Partition disks" alone for partman.
>
I would strongly recommend to use the "real" names somewhere in the
description. Otherwise it is never clear, which one of the several
(including cfdisk and whatnot) partitioners was used in a certain case.
eg.
Partition disks, recommended tool (partman)
Partition disks (partconf)
Partition disks (cfdisk)
so I would support Joey's idea, even if he doesn't seem to like it :-)
I'm not so clear about what to show when (priority, arch), because all I
know is i386
Somewhat off-topic, but also a description thing:
would it seem reasonable to add another boot method (don't know a better
term) to d-i like so
Name Setting Description
linux DEBCONF_PRIORITY=high minimum questions asked (recommended)
custom DEBCONF_PRIORITY=medium more options on bootloader, networking, file systems
expert DEBCONF_PRIORITY=low full control especially on hw and kernel modules
Excuse: I see that often we have to tell folks use:
"DEBCONF_PRIORITY=medium", which is awkward to type on a foreign keyboard
anyway. We could, if enough like it, add Name and Description above the
first prompt. Maybe that lead to lesser people pressing 'F1' to read the
help, I don't know.
> That way, all partman-supported archs will have a quite clear choice
> and non partman supported archs will only have "expert" which is not
> really a problem as these architectures are indeed often used by
> experts..:-)
>
> Moreover, the choice will only be shown at medium priority which is
> already a choice for "experts"....
>
> This terminology is the one I've already seen in RedHat 8 as far as I
> remember.
>
>
Comments?
Erich
Reply to: