Bug#492560: [pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#548900: udev update killed my LVM2 boot (sed: not found)

Sheridan Hutchinson sheridan at shezza.org
Wed Sep 30 15:21:54 UTC 2009

/9/30 Jonas Meurer <jonas at freesources.org>:
>> c.) busybox should be a hard dependency on lvm2, or cryptsetup, as
>> INDISPENSABLE for people with encrypted LVM2's to be able to boot
> no, lvm2, cryptsetup, mdadm, etc all can still be used without initramfs
> on non-root partititions (or for lvm with lilo), thus a hard dependency
> is the wrong way to go.
> initramfs-tools already recommends busybox, and installing recommends is
> the default in debian since lenny.

I disagree with your analysis, I do not see why people who don't
install recommends should not expect packages and functionality to
just work.

> additionally update-initramfs warns about missing busybox in case that
> you have root on dm-crypt/lvm/dmraid/...:
> # update-initramfs -u
> update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.30-1-amd64
> Warning: Busybox is required for successful boot!

This warning is only shown if manually done like above, it is not
shown when initramfs updates as a result of a trigger when using dpkg,
apt, synaptic or aptitude.  If I had seen this warning, I would have
heeded it.

> i guess the only real bug here is busybox not invoking update-initramfs,
> all other issues you discovered where due to your special setup and you
> ignoring warnings and docs. i suggest to close the bugreport for that
> reason.

Firstly, while I thank you for your help I don't like your tone and I
have spoken to everyone else with the utmost respect so I do have an
expectation I'll receive the same courtesy.  Suggesting that I've
ignored countless warnings and haven't read documentation is full of

a.) I didn't see a warning, as I explained above;
b.) I have not see anything in any document that says that busybox is
essential for systems with LVM2 encrypted partitions to be able to
boot.  As an end-user, I have no way of knowing this to be the case.
I do not however mind that it is the case, and normally Debian has
appropriate dependencies so that things just work and I don't need to

Furthermore, I don't perceive what is special about the desire to run
systems with only the packages that are needed.

Again, thank you for your efforts in evaluating this bug report.  Even
though I disagree with the final resolution, hopefully other users who
get caught out by this will come across this in Google and find a

All the best.

Sheridan Hutchinson
sheridan at shezza.org

More information about the pkg-lvm-maintainers mailing list