From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.saout.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.saout.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Jydc_0TJLHr for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:26:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:26:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4FE0A6DE.4090807@mousecar.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:20:46 -0400 From: ken MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FE05A32.9010402@gresille.org> <4FE061DE.5080200@gmail.com> <20120619122915.GA1317@tansi.org> <4FE08189.2020106@gmail.com> <4FE08495.8070706@archlinux.org> <4FE089E2.60900@gmail.com> <20120619145621.GA25468@citd.de> In-Reply-To: <20120619145621.GA25468@citd.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] Option "validate passphrase" for command cryptsetup Reply-To: gebser@mousecar.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Matthias Schniedermeyer Cc: dm-crypt@saout.de, =?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWE=?= =?UTF-8?B?cyBCw6RjaGxlcg==?= , Milan Broz On 06/19/2012 10:56 AM Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On 19.06.2012 16:17, Milan Broz wrote: >> On 06/19/2012 03:54 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> >>> I find the option name --without-activation to be quite long and hard to >>> type. Is there any reason why you didn't choose '--dry-run' as you first >>> suggested? >> >> Actually I wrote --dry-run, --no-activate, --no-activation, --without-activation >> on paper ... and then asked someone here what's the best:) >> >> Well, I think this option will be rarely used and I guess it is mainly for use >> in scripts. Option name says exactly what it is doing. > > It says what technically happens, not was is the intent of using said > option. (You have to read the man-page, at least in the git-version of a > few minutes ago the intent is right after the technicallity) > > I think intent is much easier to understand. > > So i'd vote for: --test-passphrase I'd agree, especially since the entire command would then read: cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/sdc x --test-passphrase -T 1 To read in documentation, on the other hand: cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/sdc x --without-activation -T 1 I would be asking, "What is not being activated?" So it's very ambiguous. On the other hand, "--test-passphrase" is much clearer, much easier to understand. Would there still be a delay between invocations?