I saw a comment about how the feature request belongs in partman-crypto. I'm happy to re-report this there if that is where it belongs.
> I agree that using the physical volume block device name is bad > because this name may not be persistent. Notwithstanding the merit of this I wanted to make sure it's understood this is different from my feature request which would be to change the installer workflow so that instead of selecting a LUKS label for me the installer prompts me for what I want the LUKS label to be similar to the way that the LVM configuration workflow works. Also thank you for giving my feature request some attention. On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 3:29 PM Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Pascal Hambourg <pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org> (2025-04-20): > > I agree that using the physical volume block device name is bad > > because this name may not be persistent. > > > > FWIW an open merge request proposed a naming scheme based on LUKS > > UUID: > > < > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-crypto/-/merge_requests/9> > > I realize it's been open for a while but I'd rather not change something > like this this late during the release cycle, so it'd be best to look at > it after Trixie is released. > > > Cheers, > -- > Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> > D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant >
