Sorry for accidentally sending from @gmail rather than @debian.org (I'm still debugging my notmuch setup). Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes: > On 18/05/2025 at 01:00, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes: >>> >>> However it may not work with a system installed from Debian live with >>> Calamares which appears to set a different btrfs subvolume layout (see >>> #1104552). (...) so would it be desirable to add >>> (trivial) support for this case in d-i RC2 ? > > Note: this is a one-liner patch. I am ready to open a MR. > >> I'm CCing Debian's Calamares maintainer, because I think this is an >> upstream Calamares bug. I hypothesise that the nature of the Calamares >> bug is that upstream assumes Ubuntu-style subvolume layout that we never >> intended to support in Debian. > > Thank you, it would be good to know whether this layout comes from > Calamares upstream, the Debian package or Debian Live configuration. I cloned everything that seemed relevant, and fairly quickly searched and scanned, and what I found was that Calamares' btrfs layout can be configured with a "mount.conf", but it sounds like only if one defaults to btrfs. We default to ext4, so it falls back to hard-coded. As I hypothesized, upstream Calamares appears to hard-code Ubuntu-style layout src/modules/mount/main.py 143: btrfs_subvolumes = [dict(mountPoint="/", subvolume="/@"), dict(mountPoint="/home", subvolume="/@home")] >> In case anyone missed the following reply to that bug: >> >>> Have you been able to track down those discussions where we decided on >>> @rootfs? > > To be honest, I am not so interested in past discussions. I am more > concerned about the current inconsistent state and interested in > aligning partman and Calamares btrfs layouts in one way or the other and > having rescue mode support both layouts in the meantime. TLDR: By doing this we would be supporting the Ubuntu layout becoming a defacto bug-for-bug standard; this wastes the time and effort of everyone who has already implemented flexible, configurable software, and rewards supporting static "@, @home" systems to the exclusion of all else. That's wrong, unjust, and not what Debian is supposed to do. If the priority is the inconsistent state, lets: 1. Fix Calamares (#1104552 reassigned; MR submitted) 2. Decide if we're going to share the "@home" namespace with Ubuntu and SUSE. If yes, and the priority is consistency, then we need to start creating and mounting "@home" (which will sometimes already exist). 3. Convert bugged installs to standard installs (this is easy, safe, and revertible) Cheers, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature