| 22 Jun 2024 |
|  nyanbinary 🏳️⚧️ joined the room. | 01:25:42 |
 maralorn | lassulus: What made you decide to use partlabels for partition discovery? Isn’t that a bit dangerous because of possible naming collisions? | 07:48:16 |
 lassulus | fs labels are dependant on the filesystem. partition numbering is different for each backend and less flexible when updating the table | 07:49:26 |
| lassulus | but yeah, there is risk of conflicts if you apply the same config to different disks | 07:50:19 |
| lassulus | but with partlabels, the device can also be specified by an environment variable. this was not possible with the old numbering | 07:50:54 |
| maralorn | So, you are saying there is a risk, but there is no better option? | 07:55:09 |
| lassulus | yes :D | 07:57:57 |
| lassulus | maybe we can add the device to the default partlabel | 07:58:26 |
| maralorn | Well, I guess it’s fine to declare this the users responsibility. | 08:17:31 |
| maralorn | Although maybe disko could at least detect if multiple partitions on the same system are named the same. | 08:18:17 |
| maralorn | Of course that doesn’t protect against collissions with random disks on the system which have no mount instructions. | 08:19:00 |
| maralorn | e.g. an old disk with previous system after a migration. | 08:19:24 |
| maralorn | * e.g. an old disk with the previous system after a migration to a new disk. | 08:19:47 |
