On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 07:29:13PM -0400, Luna Celeste wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 19:59:54 +0200, Morten Linderud wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:36:10PM +0000, Jordan Glover wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 25th, 2023 at 4:31 PM, Morten Linderud <foxboron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Currently we have a lot of our mkinitcpio hooks in several packages which has
> > > > never been consolidated. This makes it confusing where stuff belong and what is
> > > > provided where, and I really want to consolidate everything.
> > > >
> > > > It would help keeping up the development of the hooks, patch everything and
> > > > ultimately write a test suite for mkinitcpio.
> > > >
> > > > I also have long term plans on moving the default hooks from busybox to systemd,
> > > > but this will happen at a later point.
> > > >
> > > > Initially I really want to move the hooks from `cryptsetup` and `systemd`:
> > > >
> > > > * encrypt and sd-encrypt from core/cryptsetup
> > > > * systemd and udev from core/systemd
> > >
> > > What if new cryptsetup release will need some changes in the hook?
> > > How would you ensure mkinitcpio hook and cryptsetup (or any other
> > > package requiring a hook) are kept in sync?
> >
> > That is why the topic is up for public discussion. It's unclear to me
> > what the current package maintainers find acceptable/unacceptable.
> >
> > > What are the pros of consolidation?
> >
> > We can move to the systemd hooks and actually support stuff upstream.
> > We can also work on a test suite that would make it easier to ensure
> > we dont introduce regressions and maintain some code quality.
>
> How will this affect hooks for packages in the AUR, e.g.
> zfs-utils{,-git}?
I don't know?
It's not a repository package and zfs can't be supported by our kernels so what
those hooks do are not really much of my concern. If the developers of the hooks
have questions they can reach out.
--
Morten Linderud
PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
