User talk:Rdeckard

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

btrfs encrypt

Hi, gleaning recent changes I see your sandbox work and want to drop a thought: A long time passed and we still miss a Dm-crypt/Encrypting an entire system#LUKS on software RAID scenario section. Most benefits for readers would be to use standard mdadm for the section, but perhaps in conjunction with a btrfs root (btrfs we don't have an example for either yet). A while back I also thought about adding one with an encrypted btrfs raid1 (Talk:Dm-crypt/Encrypting an entire system#LVM on LUKS on LVM), but never worked on it and partly that was due to standard raid more universally useful for the article. .. just in case, roll the thought. --Indigo (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

+1, my impression is that User:Rdeckard/Sandbox is being thought as a stand-alone article, but I think it would be better to structure it as a new Dm-crypt/Encrypting an entire system scenario, and link to it from Btrfs. — Kynikos (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'll have to think about formatting for that. Thanks! - Rdeckard (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just added Dm-crypt/Encrypting an entire system#Btrfs subvolume layout with LUKS. I'm working on a multi-device btrfs one, but there are a couple of things I'm looking into a little bit. - Rdeckard (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Let me point you to an article regarding btrfs raid: Have a read of the headings Self-healing redundant arrays and Online balancing. Since I read that article I know my primary desktop will be using btrfs multidevice when I finally set it up again (it is a debian machine though, so I can not help much to that effect). --Indigo (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

GnuPG#Sign a file

First of all thanks for cleaning up the article. However I have some objections concerning your recent edits. Especially since you removed the information about the files being compressed when signed using the command gpg --output doc.sig --sign doc with the edit message ' it does not compress the original file, rm ' [1]. This is simply false according to the GNU Privacy Handbook. -- Edh (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually misunderstood your edit (and a little bit of how gpg was working in that case to be honest). I went through and changed the wording consistent with your findings and your original edit. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. -- Rdeckard (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Assuming you do not object I will add a few words briefly noting that the content is compressed when using the above command. Thanks for your work on this. -- Edh (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing, go for it. Sorry about that again, and thanks for removing that big mistake that seemed to say that signing was encrypting! -- Rdeckard (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. Just for the record: It was not even me who noticed that typo. Someone reading the article contacted me by mail not knowing how to edit the Wiki himself. -- Edh (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)