From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from v6.tansi.org (ns.km31936-01.keymachine.de [87.118.116.4]) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:27:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from gatewagner.dyndns.org (77-57-44-24.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.57.44.24]) by v6.tansi.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9A72C34FA001 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:27:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:27:18 +0100 From: Arno Wagner Message-ID: <20140217152718.GA2492@tansi.org> References: <20140217130429.GA1200@tansi.org> <53020C63.6040404@archlinux.org> <20140217143901.GB1984@tansi.org> <53022479.8070402@archlinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <53022479.8070402@archlinux.org> Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] Boot Prompt Text List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dm-crypt@saout.de On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 16:02:17 CET, Thomas B=E4chler wrote: > Am 17.02.2014 15:39, schrieb Arno Wagner: > > That this is in a c-file, not an easily changed shell- > > skript, already explains quite a bit of what is wrong > > with systemd. >=20 > Besides the fact that this is completely off-topic: >=20 > You could use the same argument on cryptsetup and claim that it should > be a shell script. Why isn't it? If I want 'cryptsetup luksOpen's prompt > to change, I need to change it in cryptsetup and recompile. If it was a > script, I could easily edit it. Actually, you just need to read the man-page to find out how to use cryptsetup from a shell-script and then you can do anything you like in that wrapper. It is pretty well prepared for that=20 usage-scenario. As to why it is not a shell-script itself, doing crypto in a shell-script is pretty stupid for a number of reasons that do not require elaboration for anybody that=20 knows the first thing about crypto. =20 =20 > It's *precisely* your argument. (Of course, it completely ignores that No, it is not. Not even close. See above. > the next system update would overwrite it, shell script or binary). Oh? Not in a sane update system for a shell script. Debians "file has been changed from original, (d)iff, (o)verwrite, (k)eep" (paraphrased) works pretty well for shell-scripts. It does not really work for binaries, for obvious reasons. > Really, please stop inventing weird arguments against things that you > don't use, are not interested in and don't know anything about - and > keep it on-topic. I am on-topic. There is absolutely nothing weird about my argument. Can the cheap retorics and the personal insults. They just disqualify=20 you. > > Pity. With a sane init system, it would just be a change to > > some shell-skript, i.e. 2 minutes with a text editor.=20 >=20 > Until the next system update - and then you edit it again. System > maintenance like it is done in 2014! Not at all. See above. I have been modifying init-scripts for more than a decade and never had any serious issues. I can only guess you lack that kind of experience. So I your answer is "it does not work, but other ways to do that are broken too"? That is both pretty pathetic not true. Arno --=20 Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., Email: arno@wagner.name GnuPG: ID: CB5D9718 FP: 12D6 C03B 1B30 33BB 13CF B774 E35C 5FA1 CB5D 9718 ---- A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. - Plato