From 5d0e48519b7160bacbfdc4d0703b2650401df588 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Zbigniew=20J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek?= <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:51:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] man: explain noauto/nofail more carefully in crypttab

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524759
---
 man/crypttab.xml | 17 ++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man/crypttab.xml b/man/crypttab.xml
index 474d3d83e01..dc43257d4ed 100644
--- a/man/crypttab.xml
+++ b/man/crypttab.xml
@@ -218,16 +218,23 @@
       <varlistentry>
         <term><option>noauto</option></term>
 
-        <listitem><para>This device will not be automatically unlocked
-        on boot.</para></listitem>
+        <listitem><para>This device will not be added to <filename>cryptsetup.target</filename>.
+        This means that it will not be automatically unlocked on boot, unless something else pulls
+        it in. In particular, if the device is used for a mount point, it'll be unlocked
+        automatically during boot, unless the mount point itself is also disabled with
+        <option>noauto</option>.</para></listitem>
       </varlistentry>
 
       <varlistentry>
         <term><option>nofail</option></term>
 
-        <listitem><para>The system will not wait for the device to
-        show up and be unlocked at boot, and not fail the boot if it
-        does not show up.</para></listitem>
+        <listitem><para>This device will not be a hard dependency of
+        <filename>cryptsetup.target</filename>. It'll be still pulled in and started, but the system
+        will not wait for the device to show up and be unlocked, and boot will not fail if this is
+        unsuccessful. Note that other units that depend on the unlocked device may still fail. In
+        particular, if the device is used for a mount point, the mount point itself is also needs to
+        have <option>noauto</option> option, or the boot will fail if the device is not unlocked
+        successfully.</para></listitem>
       </varlistentry>
 
       <varlistentry>

From 2e772f3085202f1a9289b6976af8ae3490044056 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Zbigniew=20J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek?= <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:53:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] man: tone down the note that reboot/halt/poweroff are
 legacy

They may be old (or rather compatible implementations of old commands), but
they certainly are not going away. Apart from privilege escalation through
polkit, they are mostly equivalent.
---
 man/halt.xml | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man/halt.xml b/man/halt.xml
index 0abcdb475cb..78860d94dd8 100644
--- a/man/halt.xml
+++ b/man/halt.xml
@@ -166,8 +166,12 @@
   <refsect1>
     <title>Notes</title>
 
-    <para>These are legacy commands available for compatibility
-    only.</para>
+    <para>These commands are implemented in a way that preserves compatiblity with
+    the original SysV commands.
+    <citerefentry><refentrytitle>systemctl</refentrytitle><manvolnum>1</manvolnum></citerefentry>
+    verbs <command>halt</command>, <command>poweroff</command>,
+    <command>reboot</command> provide the same functionality with some additional
+    features.</para>
   </refsect1>
 
   <refsect1>