Bug#1103706: debian-installer: Allow user to specify label for LUKS devices setup during install

aren't as trivial as you seem to think they are

I don't recall suggesting any effort was trivial.

shouldn't be bothered with that question.

You didn't answer my question regarding the viability of a patch to implement my suggested feature. Though given this statement it sounds like there is no avenue available to get the suggested feature implemented even if I were to do it myself and jump through every hoop so nothing more is required from the D-I team than merging it.

Don't expect more engagement from my side on either bugs.

Ok. I don't particularly recall asking for your specific engagement in this bug or any other. It appears that the "top down management shall declare edicts" approach that originated with the move to systemd has grown.

You also didn't answer my question in a personal email to you asking how I might identify the package specific to any bug report I make with the installer. No one can force you to be helpful but that seems counterproductive.

I'm sure as the D-I release manager you are busy but I am also sure the attitude you have extended to me is poor.

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 5:10 PM Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Tyler Riddle <cardboardaardvark@gmail.com> (2025-04-22):
> I appreciate that there is development effort associated with features but
> my interpretation of what you are saying is that concerns about a LUKS name
> can be ignored at least in terms of the Debian installer. Is my
> interpretation incorrect?
> Does this mean that concerns regarding long term maintenance would result
> in a patch to implement my desired behavior being rejected? Or that to be
> accepted such a patch would have to not only include the desired change but
> also all localization requirements to be implemented as well?

I've just explained that efforts required to support that aren't as
trivial as you seem to think they are.

> > That benefits only users who care about that kind of things, so that
> > really doesn't seem to be a question that should get asked in the
> > first place.
>
> Are you suggesting that caring about the LUKS name is an irrelevant
> detail and such concerns are unreasonable? Please clarify if my
> takeaway is incorrect here.

No. I understand this might important to you and a minority of users,
and what I wrote is that the default installation is about the vast
majority of users, who likely don't care at all and shouldn't be
bothered with that question. (Independently of the cost topic mentioned
above.

Don't expect more engagement from my side on either bugs.

Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant