RFH: testing util-linux/experimental
Hello!
I'd like to ask for help with testing the new util-linux package
currently available in experimental.
Note: If you're on a non-linux platform, please contact me *before*
proceeding for special instructions! The rest of this mail is dedicated
to those running Linux.
The new package has gone through major changes since the one available
in stable/testing/unstable.
Hopefully you'll find that installing it will be quite uneventful, but
there are some changes that certain people should be aware of before
proceeding!
First of all, do read the NEWS entries provided in the package!
One of the notes there includes mentioning that losetup has completely
dropped support for encryption. This also means that the Debian-specific
patch to extend this functionality has been dropped[HASHPATCH]. This
mean that the mount options "encryption", "nohashpass", "keybits", etc
are no longer available for loop mounts. Please make sure that you are
not using any of this, as for example having invalid settings in
/etc/fstab could potentially lead to an unbootable system (as it seems
common that people do not add "nofail" to their fstabs where
appropriate).
For the record, the recommendation is to use dm-crypt which you
hopefully already are doing if you're interested in block layer
encryption.
If you're a user of storage encryption I urge you to be extra careful
and I would also be very happy to get feedback from you on your
experience and how we could possibly make your upgrade experience
smoother.
For anyone that tested this new version it would also be nice if you
could send me your feedback! Positive or negative!
Please include information what you're testing on (architecture? init
system? etc.), if you have any special setup/configuration that could be
relevant, if you've dived deeper into some specific features of
util-linux, etc...
[HASHPATCH]: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/pkg-util-linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=882e4f9d48309b3319c75c629219b6737ed76e22
Regards,
Andreas Henriksson
Reply to: