-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 147
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support LUKS with 'lvm' autoinstall storage layout #1579
Conversation
|
Thanks for the PR Ryan! I am supportive of landing something like this, but we'll have to tune the details. I had something else in mind for the autoinstall part, I'll get back to you on that. Looks like this broke CI, have a look at which test is failing if you would. A unit test on subiquity/server/controllers/tests/test_filesystem.py would be nice, TestGuidedV2 has some similar things. To proceed I will need you to take a look at https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors |
b294452
to
96b7a79
Compare
|
|
|
96b7a79
to
a968b48
Compare
Thanks, sorry for the CI spam. I've now signed the CLA so not sure if that needs manual review by legal, DB still needs to sync or what I'm missing there. Had a quick look at the tests in
Looks like the existing test suite passes for just my first commit which is trivially exposing the existing GUI LUKS option via autoinstall. Are you happy with the approach for this bit? I'm inclined to open a separate PR for the |
Yea, I'm sure that'll sort itself out in a day. So I ran this branch through an autoinstall, with the following as input: Then grepped the output. It would be best if we didn't log the contents of storage.layout.password, looks like there are 3 places that do so. Just remove those log statements for now and I'm good to land this. |
b383d6d
to
f847293
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is all fine but github's action runners are throwing some error I've never seen before, I'd prefer to let them settle first.
|
Thank you! |
To support the same behaviour that was available with d-i/preseed.