From ArchWiki
Revision as of 13:40, 11 March 2014 by Kynikos (Talk | contribs) (Scenario intros: rm closed discussion)

Jump to: navigation, search

Cleanup and Clarification

I'm considering to do some editing and rewriting of this page, mainly in part "4 The Steps". The content would mostly stay the same, safe for some changes introduced with the newer versions of arch, where less console switching and module loading is needed. On the same subject should we drop, or move to a subsection, the parts related to versions 0.72 of arch?

Does anyone have objections to my plans, or should I just go ahead and we can revert back if it doesn't fit? WhiteMagic 12:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Clean up is really needed. Please someone with enough knowledge start the job. -- Fengchao (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This is new territory for me, but I want to implement this topic myself soon. I'll start with removing some duplicated content. T1nk3r3r (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
No longer relevant, closed. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

New idea

The philosophy behind the current old structure was to try to generalize the various steps for encrypting an entire system or a device and managing it, however we've noticed it's kind of hard. A new idea for reducing duplication of content while maintaining, if not improving, readability, would be to rename the "/Examples" subpage to "/Common Scenarios" and move it to first place in Dm-crypt with LUKS/draft, so it's used use the dm-crypt#Common scenarios section as the starting point by the readers. It should contain the most common uses for encryption, which IMO are:

Each of those scenarios should be mostly a stripped sequence of commands with short descriptions that should link to generic sections in the other subpages of Dm-crypt with LUKS dm-crypt, pointing out all the particular suggested adaptations that apply to that particular scenario.

The idea is quite clear in my mind, I hope I've managed to explain it well enough, I'll try to put it into practice and see if it raises major problems.

-- Kynikos (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: since Plain dm-crypt without LUKS would be merged here, the main article should be just renamed to dm-crypt. -- Kynikos (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: updated for current structure. -- Kynikos (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Scenario structure

Plenty of stuff to do, yet: Taking for granted we want an additional example with RAID sometime, it might be worth considering to split dm-crypt/Encrypting an Entire System into a subpage for (e.g.) dm-crypt/Encrypting a single disk system and dm-crypt/Encrypting a system across multiple disks scenarios. The latter covering "LUKS on LVM" and said RAID. Main reason: page length. If you agree, let's better do it now. --Indigo (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a bad idea at all! However IMHO the proposed titles are a bit misleading: I would go for dm-crypt/Encrypting a System on Physical Devices and dm-crypt/Encrypting a System on Virtual Devices, in fact you can use multiple physical disks in every case if you want. -- Kynikos (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: Note that the history of dm-crypt/Encrypting an Entire System should be preserved by moving it to one of the two titles, and then (or before) splitting the other page. -- Kynikos (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
+1 to your edit, I learned that from watching. The one letdown of this whole fun exercise is that the wiki engine does not seem to support basic content splits and joins preserving history. Anyhow, we might as well just keep it in mind and consider splitting it later (when there is something about RAID). Funnily, I find the use of "physical" (all blockdevices are on one) and "virtual" (suggests a qcow device) as differentiator not totally clear too. Let's meditate over it again until someone has another snappy idea. --Indigo (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Troubleshooting section?

In a dm-crypt related talk Javex remarked that we don't feature a troubleshooting section in the new dm-crypt layout and that it may be useful to have one. I am ambivalent about it, because we cover cli-tools from base mainly. Typical handling errors are part of the content and there is always talk per subpage to clarify questions and see whether (and where best) they need to be covered (or the bbs). If a troubleshooting section is deemed useful, I would favor a separate dm-crypt/Troubleshooting for it rather than sections per subpage. Opinions? --Indigo (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I too would prefer a separate Troubleshooting subpage, but only if we had enough material to put there, which doesn't seem to be the case here. I haven't been able to follow the original discussion very closely, but I agree with you that the Specialties page would probably the best place for Javex's note: he could link it from the small introductory section in dm-crypt and from the table in Disk Encryption as was proposed initially, to give it more visibility. At least that's a start that makes everybody happy: if once he's finished we see that the section doesn't really fit in the Specialties page, we're still in time to create a Troubleshooting subpage. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. Let's keep this item open until Javex has considered it (or others too). --Indigo (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)