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