Hi, Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes: > On 03/05/2025 at 20:52, Esteve Fernandez wrote: >> >> debian-live-testing-amd64-gnome.iso with live GNOME session and clicking on the "Install Debian": >> - Creates two btrfs subvolumes (@ and @home) >> >> debian-live-testing-amd64-gnome.iso with either Graphical installer or Text installer via the boot menu: >> - Creates one btrfs subvolume (@rootfs) >> >> debian-testing-amd64-DVD-1.iso with either Graphical installer or Text installer: >> - Creates one btrfs subvolume (@rootfs) > > Makes sense. The partitioning is the same in the installer launched from > either DVD or live boot menu, but may be different in Calamares launched > frome the live session. > > For sure it would be nice if both installers were aligned. What do d-i > and live teams think ? Calamares should not be doing its own thing. It's also worth verifying that Calamares is not enabling options that will trigger btrfs corner cases--unstable features are fine for Fedora or Arch, but aren't appropriate defaults for Debian stable (opt-in is of course always fine, since that's liberty). Would you please point me to the source we use to configure/preseed Calamares for the live-cds? > Additionnally, shouldn't d-i rescue mode also support Calamares layout ? Are you sure there is a Calamares layout and that this isn't just defacto Ubuntu layout? There weren't any discussions about this. Have you been able to track down those discussions where we decided on @rootfs? One of the arguments against installing to '@' was that we're letting Ubuntu claim that namespace, we're letting Fedora claim 'root' (and rootfs), and we're staying out of their way. I was surprised to learn that people use btrfs in this way, but it's not that much of a stretch from using one VG to hold multiple distribution's LVs. Another topic in that (and subsequent) discussions is basically this: 1. Ubuntu never implemented subvolume creation, because they chose ZFS. At some point their installer began to statically create @ and @home. 2. Fedora and SUSE implemented full support for any custom subvolume topology. 3. Due to Ubuntu's popularity, some developers exclusively support Ubuntu's static nonconfigurable default as a kind of emergent bug-for-bug API. 4. This results in DFSG-free software having an Ubuntu-specific implementation; DFSG-free software should also work on Debian, Fedora, SUSE and everywhere else. It also result in utterly wasting the time and effort the Fedora and SUSE developers took to implement an actual solution rather than a stop-gap measure. 5. Our users want our installer to have the same basic features as Fedora and SUSE. 6. Implementing this is a waste of time if our users will only use it to make their Debian systems behave like Ubuntu so that Ubuntu-specific software will work on their Debian systems. 7. We need to support the effort for portable software. Regards, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature