Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes:
> On 16/05/2025 at 23:52, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>>
>>>> 3. Should we hide dangerous options like "nobarrier" by making them
>>>> exclusive to expert mode? How?
>>>
>>> AFAIK partman does not currently supports this. What about a
>>> "(DANGEROUS!)" comment in the option description ?
>>
>> That's a good idea. I used up all my free time working on other items
>> so didn't find an example syntax. Would it be
>>
>> option ("Human description")
>> option "(Human Description)"
> Mount option descriptions should be added as
> partman-basicfilesystems/text/<option> debconf templates, so that they
> can be translated. FWIW, `noatime` and `nodiratime` already have
> description templates.
Do you mean
partman-basicfilesystems/debian/partman-basicfilesystems.templates which
has this:
Template: partman-basicfilesystems/text/noatime
Type: text
# :sl2:
# Note to translators: Please keep your translations of this string below
# a 65 columns limit (which means 65 characters in single-byte languages)
_Description: noatime - do not update inode access times at each access
?
I didn't think that was correct, because this looks like the translation
template that generates the po files (and mount option annotations) for
`partman-basicfilesystems` and not for partman-btrfs.
It would be best if partman-btrfs can override partman-basicfilesystems's
definitions with a mechanism like `partman-btrfs/debian/partman-btrfs.templates`.
The problem is that some of the basicfilesystems annotations don't make
sense in a btrfs context. For example, "noatime", which tends to be
essential for btrfs, because btrfs COWs the file rather than updating a
real inode.
Will creating a `partman-btrfs/debian/partman-btrfs.templates` just work
or does partman-basicfilesystems need work to have support added? If it
needs to have support added, is implementing this for trixie a hard
NACK?
Thank you for the discussion and help,
Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature