Hi Nicolas,
Thanks for the explanation.
For the most part I understand your point of view. As a matter of fact I
am not even opposed to systemd as such [1], but over the years I have
had my share of problems that in the end proved to be caused by some
transition to systemd. This has made me a bit wary of it.
On 2024-07-15 11:24, Nicolas George wrote:
Lists (12024-07-14):
When I researched the problem I encountered some posts stating that systemd
had its own implementation for cryptsetup
This is not true. systemd-cryptsetup uses libcryptsetup, it is mostly
only glue.
That might be, but to me notices about things like x-initrd.attach not
being recognized do point in the direction of incompatibility or at
least differences in the way cryptsetup is handled that shouldn't happen
for something that is relied upon by so many.
To be clear: I wasn't aiming to restart the heated discussions on
systemd on this list again! That is long behind us. It was just a
personal feeling of someone who has been bitten once again by changes
with systemd involved. In this case it was more of a d-i thing than a
systemd thing anyway.
[1] Although I have to admit that, as an old fart, I still do adhere to
the UNIX adagio of KISS. systemd is definitely not to be found in that
department. Not even close. But I do understand why a change was needed
and that systemd is a step forward in an ever more complex environment.
Grx HdV
